Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Very Important Business

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations by User:Delicious carbuncle

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated BLP violations by the user in question, despite requests to stop and 3:1 consensus at WP:RSN against using a questioned source that fails WP:RS on a WP:BLP page.

---

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adds controversial info sourced to website "www.truthaboutscientology.com" to WP:BLP page on Jamie Sorrentini, diff link
2. After talk page discussion, this issue was taken to WP:RSN. At the RSN discussion three editors, myself and two others, did not support use of this website as a source.
3. Fifelfoo stated, "Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight."
4. Becritical commented, "There's no indication that the site is reliable."
5. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was shown a prior Request for Comment on the matter, where dispute resolution did not find consensus to use the website as a source, at Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website from 2007.
6. In a strange edit summary actually acknowledging there is no consensus supporting use of a questionable source in a BLP, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) willfully violated BLP anyways, and added the questionable info back with the website source that fails WP:RS, see diff link.
7. I posted a note to the user's talk page, asking him to stop the BLP violations at the BLP page, and stated the issue would be reported if the disruptive behavior continued, see diff link.
8. Despite the 3:1 consensus against using this website source from the WP:RSN thread, and the WP:BLP issues involved as mentioned at the user's talk page - Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) proceeded to add this website source and questionable info to the BLP page, now a 3rd time, see diff link.

---

Requesting a previously uninvolved admin take action here. The info violates WP:RS and violates WP:BLP. It is contentious, poorly sourced info about a BLP, and should be removed from this BLP page. Admin action should be taken with respect to the disruptive behavior of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs); deferring to uninvolved admins to review. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• This looks also as though it has WP:ARBSCI implications, especially remedy 13 and remedy 4. --Jayron32 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, however the user has not been previously notified of WP:ARBSCI by an uninvolved admin. In any event, it seems actionable simply under the repeated WP:BLP violations, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • DC has now been notified that all Scientology articles are under ARBCOM sanction. I have also removed the contested text per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP pending resolution of the issue. I have no opinion over the reliability of the source nor of the appropriateness or relevence of the text to the article in question; the removal of the text is purely administrative as Wikipedia policy is clear that contested text of this nature is to be left out until the dispute is resolved. --Jayron32 08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He obviously meant the edit summary to be "there appears to be no consensus on NOT using this source and it is used on other BLPs" We really need to have a consensus for or against using it, it seems to be a wider issue. I see no indication of editorial oversight as I said before, and would not use it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Delicious carbuncle

I am not a Scientologist nor an activist against Scientology. In fact, I have no particular interest in Scientology and have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source that seems to have sparked this tempest in a teapot, but I hope that this episode does get the attention of ArbCom as there is clearly something very wrong in the area of Scientology-related articles.

1. I identified Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist, citing a source that at that time was being used in other biographies of living people (I know this because I copied the citation from another BLP to save myself a bit of typing).
2. Literally within a minute of my adding that reference, Cirt had removed it, claiming it was not a reliable source.
3. After I point out on the article's talk page that Cirt has used that source themselves, they state "I have not used that source for years, after discussion on multiple talk pages and consensus against using that website as a source".
   1. The first statement is simply wrong, as this same source had been added by Cirt to articles as recently as August 2009, including BLPs (eg Barret Oliver). What is more , as recently as April, Cirt left the source in a BLP when they went on a spree of trimming information from BLPs of Scientologists.
   2. The second statement (about consensus) appears to be wrong, although it is repeated by Cirt in the WP:RSN thread that they started ("Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS"). When Cirt provides a link to this consensus, it is a discussion from 2007 that is inconclusive and where Cirt (editing at that time as User:Smee) is in favour of using the source. Cirt later contradicts their earlier statements by stating that "There is not consensus now, there was not consensus then...".
4. Minutes after saying "there is not consensus now", Cirt posts in the RSN thread saying that I had gone against consensus and "violated BLP" by adding the information back into the article. Again, this was a source that was being used in other BLPs and the RSN thread was still very new.
5. In messages left on my talk page and elsewhere, Cirt uses the phrase "3:1 consensus" meaning that three editors have suggested that the source is not reliable and one (ostensibly me) believes it o be a reliable source. This appears to be a novel interpretation of consensus.

Although I was not aware of the extent of Cirt's involvement with that source, my feeling is that they were content to use it so long as it suited their purposes. Once I used it to label Jamie Sorrentini as a Scientologist (and note that there appears to be no dispute that Sorrentini was a member of the Church of Scientology), Cirt decided that it was no longer a reliable source. Only after this dispute began did Cirt remove the source from CoS-related articles. And only after being questioned about it did Cirt remove sections in BLPs that were left unsourced or poorly sourced by that removal.

To be plain, Cirt's purpose here and on Wikinews is to advocate against the Church of Scientology (hereafter referred to as CoS for brevity). Not to ensure a neutral point of view, but to identify, minimize, and add negative information about members of the CoS and the CoS itself. This is the sole reason for the puff piece Cirt created about an otherwise unremarkable minor actress named Jamie Sorrentini who has split from the CoS and become a critic. It does not suit Cirt's purpose to have her labelled as a Scientologist, hence the aggressive reaction to my edits, by which I hope Cirt has helped to make the real issue clear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The simple issue here is of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adding a poor source website that fails WP:RS to a WP:BLP page, then when this was clearly disputed and consensus did not exist to re-add the source, repeatedly, to the WP:BLP page, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) did so anyway, despite objections to the source from multiple editors at WP:RSN. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly fault DC for using a BLP to make his [WP:POINT}, but the point remains well made. Any admin should really take a good hard look at Cirt's history (including that of User:Smee) before closing this matter. The fact that scientologist probably deserve it is neither here nor there.120.23.73.50 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, do you dispute anything that I wrote about your anti-Scientology POV-pushing, and the disturbing ownership of Scientology-related BLPs that you have demonstrated through your actions in this tempest in a teapot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is quite a difference from adding the link in as an EL and using it as a reference in an article. Furthermore, the consensus at the RSN discussion is quite apparent and it seems to me that you are the only one arguing for this, even when multiple other users have clearly explained why it shouldn't be used. Also, you went ahead and added the information back in, twice, essentially starting an edit war. I agree that something needs to be done about this, especially in light of the ARBCOM sanction in the article area. Silverseren^C 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to be misunderstanding the situation, Silver seren - no one is arguing for the use of that source. I have agreed that it is not a reliable source, and it has been removed from all articles where it was used as a reference or as an external link. The issue is now Cirt's POV-pushing and anti-Scientology activities. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • DC, can I suggest that if you have specific BLP or NPOV concerns with entries edited heavily by Cirt that you attempt to engage him directly about those concerns first? To my pleasant surprise he immediately addressed two such concerns when I brought them up at the RS/N. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BLP_Problems_remain_in_two_entries. Just a suggestion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology-related article fall-out

Rather than spread this out across WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, and WP:NPOVN, I am going to post items here to back up my allegations of Cirt's anti-Scientology agenda. I believe it is glaringly obvious, but some recent examples may be helpful. Bear in mind while reading this that Cirt is an admin who is very well-versed in our policies and guidelines, that my interest here is our neutral point of view (not Scientology), and why this thread was started. To make sense of this, it is also helpful if you know that Jamie Sorrentini is someone who has split from the Church of Scientology and is now publicly critical of that group.

Only after I used the source to cite that Jamie Sorrentini was a Scientologist did Cirt object to www.truthaboutscientology.com. Cirt repeatedly and falsely claimed there was consensus against using this source and inaccurately claimed that they had not used it "for years". In fact, there was no such consensus -- although there is now -- and Cirt had used this same source for the same purpose as recently as August 2009. More to the point, that source was left in biographies of living persons edited by Cirt, as this example from April 2010 shows. It was only after Cirt had started this thread and the RSN thread that they went through and began removing it from articles.

I fully support the removal of the www.truthaboutscientology.com source, but although Cirt is normally a very careful editor, their edits have left us with some problems:

• Heron Books - this article, which has a large Scientology footer on it and lots of Scientolgy categories, appears to exist only to label it as related to Scientology. Where it previously used that source to identify the founding headmaster as a Scientologist (i.e. a WP:COATRACK article), Cirt's removal has left it with no source at all for the connection to Scientology. Although untouched by this, Delphi Schools appears to be in a similar situation (and is similarly a coatrack article).
• Barret Oliver is now identified as a Scientologist, completely unsourced.
• Alexandra Powers continues to be in Category:American Scientologists despite the removal of the poorly sourced identification. This article could probably be speedily deleted for lack of notability.
• On Lee Baca, Cirt removes the reference (which was actually applied to the 'wife of the subject) but then takes another swipe to remove what appears to fairly innocuous material sourced to CoS sites. Heavy-handed removal of positive or neutral material about people associated with the CoS seems to be a pattern with Cirt. Note that Cirt failed to remove an unsourced statement about the Baca's salary.

Much of this could be attributed to plain sloppy editing, which would be unlike Cirt, but in each case it serves Cirt's purpose, which is to identify, minimize, and add negative information about the CoS and associated individuals. The flip side of that is creating articles about anti-Scientologists like Jamie Sorrentini and oddly controversial wine bars. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• This has absolutely nothing to do with your actions explained above and is clearly an attempt of misdirection of the topic onto Cirt in order to avoid coming under further scrutiny yourself. Bringing up events from the past (events that are about content disputes no less) about another user in a discussion about your own conduct is not appropriate. Silverseren^C 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, considering that all Scientology-related articles are under an ArbCom probation, I fully expect to be under a great deal of scrutiny for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I asked Cirt to remove this material. It is trivial at best.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Silver I can't make heads or tails of how you get from here to there. I think it is clearer than day that User:Delicious carbuncle inserted that reference specifically to make a WP:POINT -- and yes I think he ought to be admonished for violating WP:POINT. However, what he is now doing appears, again rather obviously, to be the larger point he was trying to make in the first place. By all means take issue with his methods, I think there are issues to take with them, but lets not pretend to misunderstand what is going on. Carbuncle, if you think there are serious NPOV, or BLP issues with some of Cirt's articles you should have posted to the NPOV/N or BLP/N and not inserted an obviously unreliable reference to one of his articles to illustrate your point. That said, I think at this point this is exactly the type of productive thing that can come out of this. I have already, myself, started addressing some of the issues. Please keep them coming.Griswaldo (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As some one who has a lot of interaction with Cirt, due to our similar interests (though completely ideological perspectives) I am unsure of what your problem is. I suspect it because you believe him to be paid editor with COI. That being said I cant see what the problem is other than your irritated with him and assume things that may or may not (and knowing Cirt are not.) If you feel so strongly collect evidence in RFC/U but really I fail to see any issue apparent here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not irritated with Cirt, nor do I believe them to be a paid editor (although that has been suggested by others, as the link you provided shows). My "problem" with Cirt is the campaign against the CoS which they are waging on Wikipedia. Cirt does a lot of good work in both an editorial and admin capacity, but it is time to put a stop to their rather blatant POV-pushing. As much of a problem as the pro-Scientology activists have been here, we should be looking for a neutral stance rather than having one of our admins using Wikipedia to advance their own ideological position. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue then, I but heads with him more often than not. Cirt does good work thus people at WP:NRM and balance him out quite adequately for NPOV. His extensive collection of work demonstrates the ability for neutrality. start an RF/U or drop the stick there is nothing here that needs immediate Admin attention. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity when do you butt heads with him? I agree that I'm not sure this is the right venue. RFC/U does seem more like what carbuncle is looking for unless he wants to just tackle the content issues in which case there are several applicable noticeboards, and I already mentioned two above.Griswaldo (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While the noticeboards can help with individual articles, they are not intended to deal with a pattern of biased actions. I have placed notes on the relevant ones linking to this discussion. There is no need for an RFC/U as all Scientology-related articles and editors are already covered by the WP:ARBSCI ruling. I have notified ArbCom of this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

More fallout: Speedyclick.com & Doug Dohring

Two more examples of articles from which Cirt removed the www.trthaboutscientology.com source: Speedyclick.com & Doug Dohring. Speedyclick seems to be a defunct company that is "notable" for being started by two Scientologists (and sold two years later) and later being associated with spamming. It's another coatrack article:

Connections with Scientology The founders of SpeedyClick, Farid Tabibzadeh [4] and Shahab Emrani [5] [6] are both OT VIIIs, the highest currently attainable level of the Church of Scientology. Doug Dohring, Scientologist and CEO of NeoPets, was a significant shareholder and personal acquaintance of Tabibzadeh and Emrani[7][8]. Donna Williams, co-founder of NeoPets, worked as an administrative assistant at SpeedyClick for a short period of time. Like NeoPets, SpeedyClick was run according to Scientology business management techniques.

I am not sure how it is relevant that the former owners were Scientologists, but the source used is something called "Freewinds 45 (Scientology publication)". Note what Cirt said when questioned by another editor about {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Purcell&diff=401216959&oldid=400929558 removing Scientology sources] from an article just days ago: "In particular those primary sources are notoriously unreliable and will say whatever they wish to manufacture, in order to promote the parent organization. Get it?". So it is ok to source membership in the CoS to CoS publications, but not to cite that someone was the MC at an event?

In the external links section, there are links to what purport to be (but are likely not) the personal websites of the former owners, identifying them as Scientologists. Remember that this article is ostensibly about a company not about the former owners. The section that links those named individuals to spamming either relies on dead links or is fabricated since I could turn up nothing relevant at Spamhaus. (Finally, could someone remove the AdPro Auction spam from Speedyclick? I'd rather not touch anymore CoS-related articles in case people misunderstand my goals here.)

Doug Dohring (see Speedyclick.com excerpt above) would seem to have been quite successful in business, but you might not know that from our bio. Like the former owners of Speedyclick, he is linked to spamming with non-functional Spamhaus links. Using CoS primary souces, the article states this:

According to the Church of Scientology's magazine Source, Dohring completed the course OT VI[17], which, according to Scientology, means that he is progressing on a program to become "essentially a being able to operate free of the encumbrances of the material universe".[18]

I can see no reason for including that quote except to make Dohring appear foolish. Although they removed the one source that was under discussion, Cirt, an admin who claims to be very concerned about my possible violation of WP:BLP, managed to overlook all of the things that I have pointed out in articles that are in Cirt's primary editing area. I am sure if someone wants to start digging, it won't be hard to find much more evidence to back this up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The case is well made that Cirt is an attack account. I'm sure this will be dealt with now. Right?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you spinning all of this as if it was a Cirt problem? Did Cirt introduce those problems in the articles? (assuming for the moment that they are problematic, which I cannot judge yet). No, apparently he did not. He hardly edited these two articles at all, and the only edits I can find are those where he removes those external links, an action which you say is justified. What kind of twisted logic is this: he went and touched an article, uncontroversally fixing a problem, so now he's suddenly responsible for all remaining problems in that article, real or perceived, that he happened not to fix? If you feel those articles are problematic, then go and fix them, otherwise drop the stick, or this is going to become a boomerang for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tit for tat deletion nominations

• Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion)
• Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion)
• DrPhosphorus (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

After Mani Nouri (AfD discussion) was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:ENT", DrPhosphorus, an account seemingly created to argue for keeping in that AFD discussion, has been going around nominating other Iran-related biographies for deletion as "Fails WP:ENT". These are all incomplete nominations, and I spotted them first as such. I was going to roll the nominations forward, adding the missing step, until I noticed the pattern. This seems like simple tit-for-tat disruption. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Taheri, what to do? One editor has already commented, and the article looks very deletable. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just recently, I have decided to be provide constructive help in wiki. It is a bold assumption that the existence of my account and my activities only serve to save an article. My deletion nominations for Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) and Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion) are in neither arbitrary nor emotional. Both persons as far as I know, are unrelated to each other and also unrelated to Mani Nouri. Thus, the term "tit for tat" is really inappropriate for this case. Back to reality, both nominated articles lack references and the persons are not notable enough. There exist not even one international reliable reference for them. No books, no newspaper articles... The tv shows etc are just like a self-made webpage and in my opinion as reference of no value. The article on Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) provide vague information on a person with no significant achievements. He is just a "researcher" in one of the least accredited universities in Iran. Why does he deserve a biographical article in wiki? Uncle G made some strong allegations against me and my activities based on no real facts. If I was him, I would wait a few days, observe the activities, recognize a pattern and then go public. Currently, he just made wrong accusations and I think either he proves that my intention was to disrupt or he apologizes. DrPhosphorus (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your behavior, it is a very reasonable assumption that you're a sockpuppet with the purpose of disruption; whether or not your nominations are correct is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you're a sockpuppet, you're disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and doing such under an alternate name is clear avoidance of scrutiny. In your first edit, you find AfD, show understanding of wiki markup, and know how to sign your name. This is not behavior of a new user.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You even know how to use templates.. you're clearly not a new user.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the most stupid comment that I have read recently. Sometimes, I get the feeling that the only reason people like you talk, is bad digestion. Cirt taught me how to sign my comments (you can see that on my discussion page), and learning how to use templates is not a matter of years. You can always learn from how others do that. Maybe you (Daedalus969) are too dumb for it, however, this is no reason for generalizations. However, the funniest thing is that you apparently have no idea what disruption means. Then if my nominations are correct, how am I disrupting???? DrPhosphorus (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just read the page on disrupting wikipedia to make a point and actually my behavior doesn't show any of the mentioned cornerstones. In contrary, I did exactly what is said to do "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" (in case of Mani Nouri as well as bahram Soroush). I don't know whether there exists an instance in wiki to burden because of these libels against me, but if there is one, please let me know so that I can do so. DrPhosphorus (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I take back what I said about the signing, now that I can see the datestamps regarding the relevant posts.. however, that does not excuse your insult; insults are not allowed at wikipedia, so I suggest you strike your 'dumb' remark; go have a read of WP:NPA.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Daedalus969, I didn't meant to insult you and take back my remark. However, it is not right to accuse me with something without doing extensive research before. This is exactly my point the whole time. In this discussion, everybody accuses me of unprofessional behavior, however I haven't heard of any substantial proof. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation of articles from leaked classified documents

Because this topic is relevant to almost every noticeboard, I'm posting a brief incident report here. meco (talk · contribs) and Wnt (talk · contribs) have been spearheading the creation of encyclopedia articles based on leaked classified documents from WikiLeaks, using the leaked cables to support the majority of the article. This was recently discussed at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites, with both meco and Wnt ignoring the points raised in that discussion. Wnt took this a step further, and created a new article, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, which is primarily based on a classified, February 2009 cable from the U.S. State Department that lists foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests. U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the information "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list" and British prime minister David Cameron said the list damages the national security of the U.S., the U.K, and other countries. Because this list was uploaded from the classified leaked documents and lacks enough secondary sources for a standalone article, I redirected it to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[1] Wnt restored it soon after,[2] and I once again redirected it.[3] We have a problem that needs to be addressed by the community. Since the WikiLeaks cables are considered "raw data", they are primary sources. The content in question here has been described by the BBC as "one of the most sensitive",[4] and by CNN as "key to U.S. security".[5] According to meco and Wnt, this means Wikipedia must host an article on the subject and include classified content from leaked documents. I leave this matter for the community to decide, as this issue will continue to come up in the coming days as more documents are released. As Wikipedia editors, we need to show self-restraint and self-control when using leaked primary documents, and doubly so when we are dealing with leaked classified documents considered vital to global security. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is dealt with by WP:PRIMARY? Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia legal team are looking into this. At least that is my reasonable guess. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

e/c The issues of "classified" and "leaked" and so on are irrelevant. For the most part at least, there's little doubt they're authentic. The problem is that they're primary sources -- and often consist only of ephemera (the views of a given foreign service officer, often quite junior, in one place and time). This makes them great stuff to be trolled through and synthesized by historians. Your average wikipedia editor? Not so much. But there's no need to reinvent the wikipedia wheel here. Treat them for what they are -- primary, non-peer reviewed sources. Which is to say, with great caution. Any article built entirely around these kinds of cables should be deleted on site. But judicious use of cables, properly attributed and handled by wikipedia's army of crack researchers, should be ok.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also a COPYVIO problem, at least at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites: close paraphrasing of the BBC which exceeds acceptable levels (even for me, and I'm usually quite cool about such things). Physchim62 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The redirect requires deletion. The immediacy of this issue requires further clarification by the community because it is going to keep happening over the next month. Obviously, we are here to write articles based on secondary sources, but Wnt is trying to get around this by briefly quoting a secondary to support the creation of a stub, and then filling the majority of the article up with content directly from the leaked, classified documents. In my opinion, Wnt (and others) are purposefully trying to game the policies and guidelines to write articles based solely on classified documents. That's why this requires administrator attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that sort of thing is a problem and should not be tolerated. However, it's not only tolerated, it's supported, every day here. Wikipedia supports the invention of fake "topics." Go no.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't "gaming the system", but following the rules. An article has to have sources to meet the general notability guideline. So I came up with several such sources - more are easily available - and used some sources published by the agency that created the CFDI, and used a definitive primary source. This primary source in turn provides numerous search terms to find more secondary sources. Right now, people all over the world are writing news stories about many of the specific sites listed in this cable - about what was meant, whether it was out of date, what it's importance is. The primary source lets us find these sources and compile that expert analysis from secondary sources that people here say they value so highly. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The leaked documents are leaked! Even if it was Wikipedia's responsibility to safeguard U.S. security (and it isn't), it is too late for that. They are however primary sources however, and should be treated as such - at best as a source for quotes to add a bit of colour to proper reporting of what reliable secondary sources say. Anything else is likely to be OR from people perhaps a little over-enthusiastic with their interpretation. This isn't our job either. Topics need good verifiable secondary sources to justify creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Writers do have ethical obligations in every field, and in an encyclopedia, the policies and guidelines are based on such obligations: Why should we use reliable sources? Why should we be careful writing about BLP's? Why do we care about a NPOV? These are all ethical problems requiring responsibility, self-control and restraint. As I said in the discussion linked above, we're not here to write articles in the vein of The Anarchist Cookbook. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit, I have no more 'ethical problems' with dealing with this in a neutral manner than I would if the leaks came from anywhere else, but this is beside the point. Nothing written in Wikipedia is going to alter the fact that the documents 'have' been leaked. If we report this issue in a responsible manner (i.e. using verifiable secondary sources), nothing will appear that isn't out there already. Even if the odd bit of 'primary' were to be included in an article, this isn't releasing anything that isn't already known. I think it highly likely that anyone intent on using the leaked documents for hostile purposes will acquire their own copies, rather than looking for snippets on Wikipedia. I think are normal policy (properly applied) is quite adequate - though perhaps we need to remind people about BLP policy on naming non-notable people, if for no reason than that is ignored too often anyway. The 'Anarchist Cookbook' issue seems a bit of a red herring to me, as 'articles in the vein of' it would violate WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case WP:HOWTO covers the case of The Anarchist Cookbook! Well, it used to... Physchim62 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, the red herring here is the notion that because "the documents have been leaked", there's nothing we can do. That isn't true. We only write encyclopedia articles based on good secondary sources, and we do so carefully and with good judgment. Just as we don't tell people how to make weapons or hack into the Pentagon, we don't provide them with a classified list of sensitive installations and say, "do with it what you will, it is out of our hands, we're just Wikipedia editors." What you are forgetting is that WikiLeaks provides these documents to journalists, who do have ethical obligations and are supposed to be professionals. The raw data was not meant for use by Wikipedia editors who may not, and who in your case, refuse to recognize and accept this great responsibility because of a refusal to act professionally. We've got the ethical foundation in the policies and guidelines, and nothing in them says we write articles with an attitude of "well, that's that, it is out of my hands, I don't care." Just the opposite, in fact. Why do we care about accuracy? Why do we care about getting BLP's right? Why do we care about copyright? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Half the pintards out there think Wikileaks and this site are linked; let's not give them any more fuel. HalfShadow 03:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Viriditas: I'll not comment on whether I rate the ethics of the average journalist any higher than the average Wikipedia editor, but I will point out that you are wrong about access to the Wikileaks documents. Anyone can download them. As for your comments about me refusing to recognise responsibilities, I consider it unworthy of response as a gross distortion of what I wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff released by WikiLeaks has been vetted to make sure it can't do any damage to lives of people. What is now going on is that the US government is finding herself in the same boat as e.g. the Chinese government is in when issues regarding dissidents/Tibet etc. are raised. They will invoke national security as a real life version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Count Iblis (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know; funny as hell, innit? HalfShadow 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is 100% not the issue. The issue is that this is basicly a bunch of unfiltered emails (i know, "cables", whatever, same thing). You can't source a Wikipedia article to a bunch of unfiltered emails. The reason we don't allow primary sources like this to be the main source of references for an article is that there is no analysis of those sources. Wikipedia cannot be the first place of analysis. If as person wanted to, they could simply cherrypick specific cables to use as references and build a case to "prove" anything they wanted to in a Wikipedia article. We don't do that here. Its not the role of Wikipedia. It is the role of reliable secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or respectable book-publishing scholars to weed through these cables and then report on what they find. Only after someone else, outside of Wikipedia, has assigned meaning to these cables should that information be used in a Wikipedia article. Right now, its a bunch of unfiltered communications and none of us has any idea what ANY of it means. So we shouldn't use it in articles, period. When the BBC does a major piece on some aspect of something they found, and researched, and checked into, and confirmed, and THEN reported on; we use the BBC source. But not before that. --Jayron32 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Normal policy applies. No synthesis. Use WP:RS, Work within WP:BLP (for a change...) If some idiot wants to compile a list of 'potential terrorist targets' using the cables, it won't get on Wikipedia, not because it is a 'security threat' (which it is unlikely to be, for the reasons already given), but because it isn't acceptable content. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• All of our normal policies should apply here. For there to be individual articles on any of the specific documents leaked by Wikileaks, there needs to be a certain amount of significant coverage in secondary sources about those documents. However, on the other side of the field, if there are enough secondary sources to qualify an article for inclusion as a stand-alone article, arguments based on it being about classified material are irrelevant. Once released by a source, classified material becomes public. The source in this case is Wikileaks. Once released, the material is free to be used by both newspapers and any other group, since it has devolved to public information upon its release.

To summarize: articles need enough secondary sources to qualify under our policies and guidelines. If a topic does qualify, arguments for deletion of said articles because they are classified information should be considered irrelevent. Silverseren^C 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that reprinting any material that is in the "cables" released could be possibly be covered under the Espionage_Act_of_1917 and could lead to repercussions against Wikipedia. All editors should be careful to not jeopardize the project in such a way. No matter who all has done so before it could still be done on a case by case basis and people and organizations fined and/or jailed if it is determined to be. The Espionage Act has already been upheld to not violate First Amendment rights of free speech since it involves the act itself, not necessarily the material. And reproducing classified material wouldnt be justified just by saying "well, they did it too". I dont know where the whole WikiLeaks thing is going to go, but I dont think we should get involved in any way with it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Scary legal threat. Edison (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. The original releasing agent of the material is liable for the "damage" caused by its release. The releasing agent in this case is Wikileaks. Thus, the government is entirely able to sue and/or prosecute Wikileaks under the Espionage Act. However, since Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikileaks, we are not in liability with them. Furthermore, like I said above, once information is released by an agent, that material then becomes public and other sources that utilize that material are not liable for holding and/or re-releasing it. This is why newspapers and other news sources are able to discuss and re-release the classified information, because they are a secondary agent that had the information after it was made public. It falls under the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely, freedom of the press. And, because Wikipedia uses news reports to make our article, making us a tertiary source, we also fall under freedom of the press and are that much more removed from the original documents. If the government had the audacity to try and prosecute Wikipedia, it would also have to prosecute every news agency that ever made an in-depth news report on the documents, since it is their information that we are utilizing for our articles. Silverseren^C 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Please don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting to argue this issue at AfD, not ANI. We haven't even had time to properly start an edit war! I must strongly object to the continual bait-and-switch between policy issues and legal issues on this topic. There is nothing illegal about discussing "classified" information that has been widely disseminated on web and news sites all over the world. So then we get into arguments about "primary sources" - but those are policy arguments, which at most would be used to try to excuse specific changes within the article. And when those run out, we run into "ethical" arguments. But I'd like to know what kind of ethics it that demands us to pretend that we are protecting secret information, at the expense of actually abandoning WP:NOTCENSORED like it was yesterday's news.

Now as for specifics, I should point out, that in the article I created, I have secondary news sources as well as the primary source; and the secondary sources attest to the apparent authenticity of the primary source. Now some people on Wikipedia, especially when they're trying to promote a point of view, like to disparage primary sources; nonetheless, there is nothing that gives a person a better idea of what is in a list of things than the list itself. And do note that the primary source (the 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative list) is being used as a source about itself, which is the most kosher use for such a source. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's suspend legal and ethical issues for the moment. Please read WP:PRIMARY; it will explain everything. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY would be useful if only primary sources had been used in the article being discussed. However, as can be seen], there were secondary sources involved. Only a few, admittedly, but that means that it should have been taken to AfD. A redirect edit war was not the way to go. Silverseren^C 05:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add that my article is about the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative". The primary source that I cite contains text that identifies itself, as confirmed by secondary sources, as the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (CFDI) list". So I am using this primary source as a statement about itself. I fully understand that there are very problematic uses of the cables as primary sources - for example, the widely disseminated news stories that China wouldn't mind if South Korea took over North Korea, based on a leaked cable which quotes a South Korean defense minister stating that opinion. But that's not what I did here. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the other issues is that the secondary coverage isn't really solid enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Of course, like i've been saying, that means that it should have been taken to AfD, not just automatically redirected. Silverseren^C 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agenda driven editing is not good, unless the agenda is to create high-quality encyclopedic content. If editors are out to make a WP:POINT by creating lots of original research articles based largely on primary sources, not only should those articles be deleted, but the editors causing massive disruption in that way ought to be blocked. Editing in such a volume as to win a dispute by overwhelming the other side, in contravention of policy, is strictly prohibited. Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm being addressed by Jehochman above, so I'll specify I don't think that I'm the one trying to "win a dispute by overwhelming the other side" when I make up a new article. I feel like I'm the one being overwhelmed by accusations of policy violations, being unethical, and being threatened that the ancient legal evil that attacked Eugene Debs has crawled out of Lake Totenkopf and is about to start chasing Wikipedia editors. And the agenda foremost on my mind when creating the list section of the article was to take a confusing jumble of unfamiliar terms and convert it into a sea of pretty blue Wikilinks so that you could look up and understand all the sites and networks of pipelines and cables. I should be a poor inclusionist if I did not observe, by the way, that due to unreasonably restrictive standards, Wikipedia's coverage of corporations is so poor that even many corporations identified by the U.S., a foreign country in their lands, as critical to the U.S. economy, have not been deemed worthy to have their own Wikipedia articles. I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles. We've just been handed a treasure trove of inside information such as the world has rarely seen. Yeah, it should have been kept secret, but it wasn't, and now we have new information about all kinds of topics. That's as conventional of an encyclopedic agenda as there is, and it is also as radical as Wikileaks: because the premise of SIPRNet is that 1 in 500 people is entitled to know the truth, and the rest aren't. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To say something about your statement "I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles." What you are doing by adding things straight from the cables to articles is to confuse data with analysis. As they stand right now, the cables are basically raw data. We have no idea what they mean. Random statements taken from those cables, out of context from the entire situation that generated them, serves no purpose at Wikipedia. What needs to be done is someone who knows what they are doing, and is an expert in either investigative journalism or international relations or both needs to sit down with the cables, sort through them and generate a reliable story that lets us know exactly what they mean and can explain why they think that. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. When John Doe in a cable says something, I don't know what he means. I don't know what its in response to, I don't know how it relates to other parts of the world the cable refers to, but is not covered by this current data dump. I don't know shit. I know he said what he said, but I have no means to put it into context such that I can extract meaning from it enough to use it appropriately in a Wikipedia article. THAT is why we need secondary sources. Secondary sources do the hard work necessary to provide the context necessary to extract meaning from primary sources. The cables themselves are useless until they are analyzed. --Jayron32 06:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary source was not being used to interpret anything in the article. It was being used to source a list of infrastructures. See my response below. Silverseren^C 06:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, we're discussing a single article that was created that did have some secondary sourcing. The question I have is why the article wasn't taken to AfD. The efforts by Viriditas to redirect it seem to be against policy. Silverseren^C 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

People often mistake "Articles for deletion" as a delete/keep only discussion, when there are other options such as redirection. This is probably covered more broadly at ANI. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we (or rather you - I'm off to bed) stick to discussing the general principle here, rather than getting drawn into debates over specific articles. As I see it, since those advocating 'restraint' are really only suggesting that we don't engage in OR, and the majority of remaining comments are saying much the same thing, we are close to consensus anyway: Work within policy, properly applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem may lie within the interpretation of said policy, rather than the policy itself or the work involved in applying it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that, but it also stands to reason that policy was not followed by Viriditas. The whole edit war of redirection, unredirection, and redirection should have never happened. I put more blame on Viriditas for this because s/he should have followed policy and taken the article to AfD. Silverseren^C 05:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>My two cents: WP:Primary and WP:BLPPRIMARY could usefully be edited to prevent use of primary sources that could reasonably put people in physical danger, even if those primary sources are available elsewhere. BLPPRIMARY already says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So why do that but allow use of secret records that could get people killed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. The reason we don't use primary sources isn't because they are secret or harmful. Its because, without the acompanying analysis provided by secondary sources, we have no way to assign meaning to things that are in primary sources. Secondary sources (news outlets, scholars, things like that) will read through the cables, analyze them, work with other known information to construct a story about what they all mean, verify their story, confirm it independently, and THEN report it. That sort of work is what is needed before we can use information. Raw data (and that's all the leaked cables are) isn't of much use to anyone unless we can put the raw data into context. We can't put them into context ourselves, that's the textbook definition of WP:OR. We wait for someone reliable to do the work to put them into context, then we report what THEY find. That's why we don't use primary sources. It has nothing to do with rights, or privacy, or secrecy, or liability. Its all about the core purpose and values of Wikipedia. This is a WP:5P issue and nothing else. --Jayron32 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, like i've been saying above, the article did have secondary sources, so this continued throwing around of WP:PRIMARY is unfounded. If you actually look at the article, you'd see that the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary. Silverseren^C 06:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still talking in the general, not the specific. If your article doesn't meet the problems I laid out, then I'm not talking about you. People, however, keep trying to say that these cables are somehow useful to Wikipedia. They aren't. They are next to worthless until someone else comes along and tells us what they all mean. Insofar as you have found someone that did that, you may be OK. (I am not saying that your secondary sources are good, and I am not saying they are bad, I am just saying, you know!). The problem is that people are expressing the belief that the cables themselves are good sources for Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Primary: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....."

Jayron32: "we don't use primary sources."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we don't use primary sources to build an article around. Primary sources are useful in limited ways. For example, if we have an article about, say, an important chemical process, while the main text of the article is cited to reliable chemistry texts which discuss the process and its applications, it is quite appropriate to also include the primary publication that introduced the reaction as a supplemental source. Likewise, using the cables as supplemental references in articles which are reliably sourced to good, solid secondary sources may be appropriate. However, the use of the cables as the sole or main source to build an article is a bad idea. You conveniently left out of your quote from WP:PRIMARY above "...but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and later " Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." (bolding original). The problem is claiming that the cables can be used to write Wikipedia articles. They cannot. They can be used to supplement articles in very limited application. --Jayron32 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some cables are primary sources, essentially telegrams from an individual official back to Washington. But others are "scenesetters" compiled by a group of embassy personnel to brief a visiting high-level official. These seem comparable to a secondary source in nature. Whether primary or secondary, they will often turn out to be useful - for example, a quote from a foreign politician will often be quite informative in itself, without further explanation, simply as an insight into his opinions. Wnt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, do WP:VALINFO and WP:USEFUL apply here? Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, as I pointed out above, there are certain public record primary sources that Wikipedia currently prohibits BOTH for basing a whole article on, and ALSO for mere supplementation purposes. I'm saying that leaked national security info should be added to the list. Otherwise, clever editors will find a way to use it as supplementation instead of as the core of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaving out "private data" from an article already risks running into censorship, but the hope is that it is not really encyclopedically relevant anyway. It is a prohibition on specific types of facts of low importance. Your proposal is to ban information according to the route by which it reached us, regardless of its (generally large) overall significance. We should not allow the small errors of one policy to turn into the larger errors of the next until we end up ruling out coverage of major world events. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, adding "national security" to the list of things to exclude is a very bad idea. Many governments around the world use those two words (or one of many commonly-known related terms) to suppress all kinds of information, sometimes for no understandable reasons at all. (Unless you consider "someone with a lot of power doesn't want this known" to be an understandable reason.) If you think we have enough of a headache with ethnic/nationalist squabbles on Wikipedia, allowing "national security" to be a reason not to use a primary source will make those squabbles feel like playful noogies. The best solution in any case which may involve those two words is to continue to use such sources (per our guidelines, of course) unless explicitly told not to by the Foundation: since they're the ones who'd be on the front lines in any tangle involving freedom of speech vs. national security, our best course would be to defer to their decision on the matter, not matter how stupid it is. -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#FollowIng_reliable_sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the editors above that the classified or leaked status of the cables is not relevant for us (we are not the US government), but their status as primary sources is: they are "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event", as described at WP:PRIMARY, and have not been subject to editorial oversight. As such, articles should not be based exclusively on them.  Sandstein  07:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In covering the documents in question, CNN announced that it "is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry."[6] However, this did not stop User:Wnt from citing the CNN article and publishing specific details from WikiLeaks. This is most certainly relevant for us, as this is incredibly poor editorial behavior that is not condoned by Wikipedia. Here we have reliable secondary sources that admittedly refuse to print the details, and yet we also have Wikipedia editors who ignore the secondary sources and decide to publish the details from the primary sources anyway, because they know better than the secondary sources. Furthermore, Silverseren's laughable claim that "the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary" is highly and purposefully deceptive. Wnt's original article was 24,876 bytes, of which only 3,664 bytes were sourced to one secondary source (CNN), with the rest coming from WikiLeaks. The rest of his sourcing was a combination of original research and misuse of primary sources. A later revision by Wnt added a BBC source and a Times Online source printed by The Australian, expanding the article a little more, but with the majority of the article based on primary sources that CNN refused to publish. So, we have secondary sources that refuse to publish sensitive classified information that a Wikipedia editor feels they can safely ignore. Wnt should be blocked for doing this. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I slept through this part of the debate, but I just want to say that the New York Times is close to the bailiwick of Joseph Lieberman, who has been running around intimidating companies like Amazon.com by various methods. I feel like they've been intimidated rather than educated. When I read the list I see nothing that looks like an ingenious opportunity to do harm that al-Qaida would never have thought of --- to the contrary, I suspect that many of these sites are on the list because they've been the targets of previous terrorist attack. That's a big supposition of course, assuming that things like the Internet cable cuts in previous years were in fact attacks, but in time as the secondary sources are added for each of the items on the list, the truth should become apparent. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here, i'll break down the sources that were used for you. There were the news articles (this, this, this, and this). There was a book (this). There was a website - Army Technology (this). There were two company links, ones that were mentioned in the article (this and this). There were two links to Department of Homeland Security informational pages (this and this). And there was the link to the cable document from Wikileaks (this). That was the entiriety of the sources.

Of these references, the department of homeland security ones were used primarily in the lede as an intro. Then three of the four news articles were used to make the paragraphed content section. The rest of the article was the list of infrastructures. The Wikileaks cable link was attached to the opening sentence of the list, which stated what the list was of. The company links, the other news link, and the website link were all attached to individual things in the list.

Now, can you tell me again what was wrong with this article? If you are going to say not enough secondary coverage, then fine. But that means you should have taken the article to AfD, as any other editor would do when following process. Instead, you started a battle of redirection with the article. For reference, this version was the one I was lookng at while making this comment. Silverseren^C 08:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The article itself was created out of process, when its original proposal was rejected on the parent talk page (linked in the first comment). Wnt ignored that consensus and created it anyway, along with a detailed list of sensitive sites -- even after the single, solitary secondary source he relied upon rejected the detailed list.[7] This doesn't require an AfD, it requires a behavioral readjustment. Here, we have Wnt ignoring the discussion which rejected the proposed article in the first place, and ignoring the secondary source he himself relied upon to create the article, which also rejected the detailed list. The sources you refer to above aren't even worth discussing as no article on Wikipedia could ever be created with them. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would actually read my previous comment, you would notice that there were four news articles. Yes, CNN says that it won't disclose any specifics, but the other three (this, this, and this) do specifically discuss the items in the list. Not all of them, of course, but quite a few, including the various pipelines and materials in various countries. Presumably, CNN didn't put any specifics because it is a US paper and its protecting its own interests. The other three are not US-based, so they don't have a problem discussing things. Silverseren^C 09:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable secondary sources support the subject of the article, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, and which support the existence of the list items in whole or in part? That's right, the answer is none. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aside from the issues with WP:PRIMARY, I really don't see any problems here. The requirement is that content is verifiable, and – for better or for worse – these cables have been leaked and are now publicly available. I notice that some editors above are making, "Let's not make Wikipedia look too connected with Wikileaks," type comments. These have no relevance to our content policies and should be discounted. WP:CENSOR is the standard which applies here. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 08:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Synthesis is the relevant policy. While they are editors, Wikipedia editors are not political scientists and political sociologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• What exactly is being synthesized in the article, the list? Silverseren^C 09:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The WP:AFD process is the appropriate method to deal with assessing community consensus regarding notability and whether Wikipedia should have article(s) on this. -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Except we've already had three discussions on this topic, with the editors above refusing to acknowledge the most basic policies and guidelines supporting article creation and development. Now, we can look forward to a fourth discussion to make it "official"? Sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks 100% fine to me. We have notability established in multiple reliable sources, critical coverage in reliable sources. The classified nature of the primary source is irrelevant. And primary sources are not disallowed, simply to be treated with care. As third party RS's have identified this as the CFDI list then it can be legitimately used to source the contents of the list. There is no issue here. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please name a single reliable secondary source that supports the article subject as found in the current title, as well as a reliable secondary source that supports the contents of the list? I looked and did not find any. This appears to be a serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

*floods* Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I can go for 100 if you want. Want me to? :) Silverseren^C 10:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think you misunderstand the point of WP:PRIMARY. The list is identified as what it puports to be according to reliable sources, the initiative exists as recorded in reliable secondary sources. Now, there is the issue to discuss whether to include the actual list in entirety, and in fact I would tend to agree with not including the list. My thinking there is not to do with primary sourcing (primary sourcing is absolutely fine if no OR is conducted, and notability is already established), but rather to do with having an unwieldy list sourced to a marginally verified document. But the notability of the article topic is, I think, not in question --Errant ^(chat!) 11:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have misunderstood nothing. There are no reliable secondary sources about the subject. All of those sources linked above are about WikiLeaks and regional installations that were named on leaked secret cables from the State Department, as well as reactions to the leak from officials. Reliable secondary sources about the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, also referred to as the "Department of Homeland Security list on overseas sites" are simply non-existent. So, my original creation of a redirect to the DHS was entirely supported. What we are seeing are attempts by editors to create new encyclopedia articles with every new classified document released from WikiLeaks, even when the coverage amounts to little to nothing. Per WP:RS, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no sources on the topic of the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, only passing mentions to it in sources about leaked documents from WikiLeaks. I can't see it being anything more than a redirect to the DHS. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you may have a point there. Although there is sourcing pre-dating the leaks. So; take it to AFD and make the case. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems also to be a problem also with WP:NOT#NEWS here. Just because WP is not censored, doesn't justify us being used as a dumping ground for material taken straight out of a primary source on the backs of a few news clippings. This 'mass creation' of articles in such a fashion might satisfy a few egos in the competition to create new articles, but it seems to me not to be the route to proper encyclopaedic content. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because of a considerable amount of good editing done by Silverseren recently, the sourcing of the article has been strengthened considerably. Many thanks. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note In reviewing the sources at Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, there are many good sources, but there is also a large amount of information that is either unsourced or sourced to an inappropriate primary source. I have left a note at that article's talkpage[8] that the primary source should be removed. Anyone who wishes may remove it, along with any other information in the article which is not sourced to a reliable secondary source (such as respected news and journal articles). --Elonka 06:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• It didn't work. I tried to carry out the consensus opinion, but have met with tag-team efforts of Selver seren and Meco. I will stand aside and let someone else have a go. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Careful. That source and its use seems to meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY - people who yell "that is a primary source and must removed immediately" I find usually miss the fact that primary sources can be used :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I second that - I was surprised and disappointed to read Elonka's comment. I should note by the way that the sum total of people who have want to keep a primary source and happen to be working on an article do not constitute a "tag team". Edits like this are essentially original research. I want to keep the list in full agreement with the source I took it from, not revise it based on personal opinions. Also I should add that since the CFDI list was compiled by DHS working with other government agencies and quoted in an official cable requesting further input, I would suggest it may actually be a secondary source anyway. Wnt (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are easy to misuse. In the case of non-controversial information, a primary source is occasionally appropriate. But as soon as information is challenged, the requirement for sourcing becomes more stringent. --Elonka 14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, see, that is subtely different from what was originally contended :) However, WP:V simply requires a reliable source. Primary sources cand be reliable and useful if used with care purely for factual information; in this case sourcing the content of the list to the list is exactly the sort of careful use allowed. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note The use of {{adminnote}} should be severely restricted. It should only be used for clearly administrative purposes. In particular, using it in what amounts to a ex cathedra statement in a content dispute is entirely inappropriate. Seriously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On Viriditas and this article

Viriditas recently placed this notice on Meco's talk page. It seemed a bit houndish to me, but I decided to take a moment to investigate his claims of consensus. The article's talk page doesn't seem to tell much, since there is very little discussion at all and that can hardly be called consensus. But the cable's talk page discussion was quite revealing. It seems to be Viriditas arguing extremely harshly about not having the article exist, with Meco and Cyclopia arguing against him. Furthermore, this discussion is not about making a separate article, but about having a section on the vital lists in that article. Also, Meco perfectly summarized the statements from editors in the discussion here. It seems to me that this entire ANI discussion is him being a bit pointy. I still have no idea why he doesn't just put the article up at AfD. Silverseren^C 09:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my last edit to this thread. Feel free to close. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

But don't leave now. There's more to come! I'm sure your perspective will still be appreciated. __meco (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's more to report on the surreptitious machinations of Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in this conflict. Let me serve you a few items:

1. At the top of of the section to which this section is an addendum, Viriditas begins their "incident report" by asserting that "meco and Wnt have been spearheading the creation of ...". Now, if one checks the edit histories of both United States diplomatic cables leak, its talk page, Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak, and the article which Wnt created, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, this user's first post on either of the first two was this edit to the article at 18:26 (and this is their only edit to that article) adding a wikilink to the article which they had begun writing at 06.45 on Dec 8. Wnt's first post on the talk page was this post at 23:22 on Dec 8. I.e. by all likelihood Wnt knew nothing of the ongoing conflict and wasn't involved in spearheading anything. Unless Viriditas knows something that isn't immediately apparent, Wnt's role in this is simply a gross misrepresentation of the facts. (correction: according to Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative Wnt cofirms having had casual knowledge of the ongoing discussion. However, this information was given at 05:14 on Dec 9, so it should not impinge significantly on Viriditas' "spearheading" claim vis-á-vis Wnt. __meco (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
2. On Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak Viriditas repeatedly accuses me of disregarding consensus and making unilateral moves. Viriditas claims that five editors have told me off, but this I'm supposed to ignore in cavalier fashion. In this section I make a summary of the the preceding discussion ("perfectly summarized", according to Silver seren above), where I show that Viriditas' asserted consensus is no such thing, i.e. again a blatant misrepresentation.
3. Then, finally there's the matter of the redirect and the section which I wrote for United States diplomatic cables leak on the cable detailing facilities worldwide that are critical to US national security. The section I wrote was taken out of the article by Viriditas, who claimed I was violating consensus against having this section [I have copied it to the talk page where it can be easily read on yellow background). Obviously floundering in their frantic attempts at having this information kept out of the article, Viriditas then becomes highly "creative": at 14:42, exactly two hours after I had added the section to the article[9], Viriditas self-appropriates unilateral emergency powers and makes a drastic re-organization of the article—purportedly to reduce its by claimed unmanageable size—moving all discussion of substantive cables content from the article (reducing its size from 166kb to 43kb) to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, a page which was originally created on Dec 1, then at the same time reverted to a redirect, but now, in one unilateral, undiscussed (well, there had in fact been discussion, but that turned out to oppose having this fork as a separate page) move recreated, of course, completely bereft of any mention of the sensitive facilities cable. (Now, I immediately went to AfD with this article, however, seeing that whatever shenanigans had caused the recreation of this article at this point in time, having this AfD process ongoing besides all else was not the best strategy going forward, I withdrew the nomination. Viriditas' actions in this, however, are still salient points to be considered in the context of the present discussion.)

In my opinion it is Viriditas, and nobody else, who has been shown attempting to game the system in this case, and I would suggest that their repeated display of inappropriate and disruptive behavior should call for them to be banished from editing on this subject. __meco (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

When Viriditas first redirected the article, I noticed on his user page that he had a userbox saying that he followed a 1RR and preferred to talk through disputes. As I felt that redirection was grossly inappropriate, I put the text back and summarized my position at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. I wish he'd followed his stated preference, because I think he's simply wrong with his idea that one article's talk page can prevent creation of another, sight unseen. Seriously, I think that even if there had been a formal and well-attended !vote at that talk page that said specifically "You, Wnt, shall not start the CFDI article", it still would have no basis in Wikipedia policy. In general I don't think we have a policy that provides a way to ban the creation of an article in advance, even here on ANI; we have WP:SALT, but that's only for repeated creations of bad articles and there's still supposed to be a way around it. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The redirect action which Wnt mentions here is not the same one as I'm discussing above, just to avoid any confusion. I didn't mention the inappropriate redirecting of Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, but it is yet another incident that goes to show the M.O. of Viriditas on this subject. __meco (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All of a sudden, Viriditas's obsession with deleting content in the United States diplomatic cables leak article and people out of the talk page is starting to make a lot of sense. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• My summary of the situation is:
  • Viriditas should learn WP:NOTCENSORED by heart and take notice of all the cases listed in WP:COMPREHENSIVE to make himself acquainted with the fact that we do not censor sourced information (even primary sourced information) just because it's "sensitive". Our imperative is to give as much as possible full and unbiased coverage to our readers of notable information.
  • To my knowledge, there is no need of having prior consensus to create an article: we invoke consensus to remove them at AfD.
  • WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit to use primary sources, as the leaks are, but requires secondary sources to give them context and interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." . Now, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative seems to source to the primary source just the bare list, while all the context comes from secondary sources. It seems roughly fine to me. If anything, this is something that has to be discussed at the talk page as a content issue. But there is absolutely no problem with the existence of the article (notable by any standard) and with exposing the full list (remember, we're not censored, at all). --Cyclopia^talk 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a wonderful summary. Silverseren^C 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews

Not commenting on the specifics of whether these articles should be on Wikipedia (I haven't looked at them in detail) but I just wanted to note that Wikinews does accept articles based on primary sources and to some extent original reporting. I'm sure more contributions to their Cablegate coverage would be welcome. the wub "?!" 13:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Answer: WP:NOT#NEWS. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikinews != Wikipedia. Wikinews is another Wikimedia project. (Or, to explain it at length, The Wub is wisely suggesting that anyone who wants to write articles based on material from WikiLeaks should take it somewhere else -- such as, but not limited to, Wikinews.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Are we still discussing the notability of the page, even after the links I gave in the above section? Fine, have some new ones, here, here, and here. Are we good now? Silverseren^C 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I was looking to create a stable resource explaining the CFDI, which could be added to over time, rather than a one-time news report that would become locked and unable to integrate further information. Because of this general preference I have very little familiarity with Wikinews. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Flobot222

Flobot222 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This editor seems to rack up warnings on an almost daily basis. They are only editing India/Pakistan/Persia related articles, specifically concerning ethnicity, and obviously making lot of contentious edits, seemingly based on the manifest that the user insists on having on his/hers talk page. Yet the user has never used an article talk page, but has instead preferred edit warring, both the quick and the slow version.

I am not terribly familiar with the subject matter at hand, but it seems to me we have an SPI that are unable to keep their neutrality as well as unwilling to engage in discussion about their edits either on article talk pages or their own. As such I have my doubts that this editor is an asset to the project, although with some friendly but stern advice they might become one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed this after warning them (different edit) and posting at the Edit warring board (4 removals at Jemima Khan). Very recent editor and pretty much every edit gets reverted or flagged for the same race-related POV push? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello both of you, Can you present diff links to contested edits? So far I haven't seen much that I'd feel too much out of place. I consider the Jemima Khan edits fine. There is no reason to emphasize on religion or converting to another in the lead. Reviewing some edits:

• Edit taking out unsourced section describing a people (Kaul) through physcial attributions. [10]
• This edit is bad, but it appears he may not know what a cognate is. [11]
• This edit is good [12] as is this [13] another good one [14]

I would like to understand which POV you are referring to, especially what race-related POV he is pushing? Again, please provide diff links. I found a few crappy edits, like the one Saddhiyama complained about [15]. Chartinael (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the username not against our username policy at it has bot in it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He got blocked for the username, although I don't see how his user name violates that policy. Chartinael (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with "bot". Mo ainm~Talk 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have inquired with blocking admin: The user name does not END with -bot, it contains -bot- I do not see, how this is a violation. Also, he is new why not point the potentially misleading fact out to him and suggest a change. Chartinael (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the account is only blocked for username violations then they are welcome to request a name change. Mo ainm~Talk 12:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a username vio, I don't think... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The username policy is not well written on this point. I understand why any name with "bot" in it isn't banned, but it should specify that any name which could be 'easily misunderstood to be a bot's name should be verboten, as is the case here. The username block of Flobot222 may not have been within the current written letter of the policy, but it clearly fits its intent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, first thing I saw was what looked like a bot name ... wondered why it was still unblocked ... didn't look further because I was not at a secure computer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Returned as User:Uwo222. Same edits re-appearing already. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I apologize for any causing any concerns, but I'm only making the introduction of Jemima Khan more concise. It regurgitates everything written the article, which is short to begin with. Also, it has arbitrary details included such as which years her relationships lasted and her conversion upon marriage? This stuff is detailed in the article sections. The formatting of the introduction is very odd and not consistent with other articles. This is why I'm editing out details in the introduction that are already stated later in the article. Sorry again for any problems caused. Thanks guys!Uwo222 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM

Based on comments left at User talk:Newyorkbrad, at least one editor is requesting a review of my actions regarding the removal of talk page access of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I should note that yes, I did use an incivil edit summary during the process. That was wrong, and I should not have. Regarding the issue of whether or not TFM should be allowed talk-page access, there was an unblock request on his talk page which I attempted to respond to. In responding to his unblock request, I made no less than three attempts to discuss conditions for an unblock with him. All I was trying to ascertain was the sort of restrictions that he would accept if unblocked. He never once responded to my inquiries, except for some attempts to make light of my attempts. I renewed my efforts several times to get him unblocked, but he made no indication that he wished to participate in his own defense. After it became clear he wasn't directly interested in further improving Wikipedia, I went to Newyorkbrad to consult with him; he had recently restored TFM's talk page access, after a previous admin had removed it. With NYB's advice and consent, I re-removed TFM's talk page access. If there is consensus to restore it yet again, that is if consensus among other users is that TFM should continue to have access to his talk page, I will restore it myself. --Jayron32 17:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the editor was not constructively using their talkpage for unblock requests, then they probably don't need access to it. They can of course still email the arbcom and appeal their block directly, as well as emailing any other administrator on the list. Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's close this thread quickly before anyone else gets a laugh out of it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should block someone's talk page access just because they are joking around and playfully mocking you there. Jokes are a good thing. Jokes do not equal disruption. Anthony (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was very, very obvious that he was just joking, as he usually does. You know when he is being serious, as can be seen in his unblock request, which was serious and to the point. I do not believe that he said anything in the discussion on his talk page that warrented removal of his access to it. Silverseren^C 20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The seriousness of the unblock request merely throws the trolling elsewhere on his talk page into sharp relief, and in this context bringing down the curtains on his little play is appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 20:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he was joking. I made no less than three serious attempts to redirect the discussion to his unblock request. He "joked" every time. At some point it ceases being joking, and becomes "lets see how many people I can piss off". That's kinda trolling, isn't it? Let me ask you Anthony and Silver seren a question: if he did wish to be unblocked, why did he not take my questions regarding his unblock request seriously? More to the point, how should I have phrased my discussion with him to elicit a serious response from him? I am being serious here in wanting help. I don't know what I could have done better to engage him in discussing his unblock request, if you have ideas on how it could have been done better, please let me know.--Jayron32 20:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "no fun with your mates" thing was a little over the top, and no one would really agree to that. The problem isn't fun with his mates; the problem is fun with people who do not want to have fun with him. I think a compromise might have been possible on-wiki; I don't know for sure because I don't know his ultimate motivation. But you pretty much gave him a take it or leave it option that no one would have taken. Sure, he handled it unhelpfully too, but since you asked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem was that, at the same time you were asking him your questions, other users were not being very couteous to him within the same discussion. I know I would get rather pissed off if some of those comments were directed at me. It's quite clear that he tries to use humor or sarcasm to diffuse tension and as a response to the discourteousness of others. Silverseren^C 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but then let me ask you this Silver seren. Was I, in the messages I left at his talk page, being discourteous with him. What in my comments indicated that I was being discourteous in some way. I am trying to see where I could have done something differently, rather than what other people were doing. I have no control over what others were doing, only myself. --Jayron32 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that and, no, you weren't being discourteous. However, the fact that others were was not very conducive to him properly "debating" with you over what his restrictions could be. So, he did what he does in this sort of thing, he jokes about it. And I think the joke about "laughs with his mates" was actually hiding it being a real question. I know I would pretty much die and leave Wikipedia altogether if I was restricted to only editing articles. Silverseren^C 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference, of course, being that you've not done the sort of gross dirsuption he's done, which includes among other things, creating sock accounts for the sole purpose of trolling. This whole discussion is predicated on the belief (which I still hold) that he's not here to improve the encyclopedia, he's here to take the piss out of as many random people as he can. The more chances he gets to do that, the more emboldened he becomes in his trolling. You are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, so no one is telling you that you deserve sanctions. TFM appears to have different motives. --Jayron32 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there other socks that I don't know about? I thought it was just the one alt? Silverseren^C 21:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean this? Silverseren^C 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean User:Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it untrue then that, as TFM said here that multiple other users knew Bad edits r dumb was him? Becuase, if they did, then it's not a sock, but a known alt. Silverseren^C 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for the four socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To silver seren: That other users knew about an alternate account doesn't mean that the alternate account wasn't being used abusively. Being known by other editors doesn't mean that the alternate account is instantly allowed to do anything. I have some (particularly painful) arbcom decisions I can reference regarding this if you want. --Jayron32 21:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Folquenbeam. I think the problem was your proposal was something that most people would reject. He did it his way. Anthony (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) In this particular case, I understand your (Jayron) motivation, but it might have been better if you'd thrown up your hands in frustration (perfectly understandably), but allowed Gimmetoo and possibly others to take a crack at it. The only real disruption going on was the annoyance it was causing some people who were watching the page; a better solution in these cases (IMHO) is to not watch the page anymore. Because there were (again, IMHO) other, rather less helpful people than you on that page as well, I don't think it's a bad idea for TFM to engage Gimmetoo (or others) via email, rather than continue the zoo. But I'd have left that up to him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've looked again for a distinction between his interactions with Jayron32+Gimmetoo and with others - and I don't see it. YMMV. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This option [Allow talk page access] should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. I don't see "continued abuse of the talk page". Not debating someone on his own terms is not abuse. Bad decision, undo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I wasn't debating him, I was trying to unblock him. --Jayron32 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• So undo the talk page lock-out. But if anything, I think it will only lead to a quicker community ban of TFM. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I actually considered that; for reasons that I also disagree with (but can only argue so many things at the same time), this kind of talk page behavior frustrates some people to the point where they think a community ban (rather than unwatchlisting the page) is the solution. If the page is unblocked, I'll probably point that out to TFM. As I said above (or below, I'm getting lost in the threading) email might be a more productive path for him right now. That's what I'd do if I were him. But I'm not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's way close to what I was thinking, hence I wasn't too worried about the TP lock-out, about which I'm truly neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, "I made no less than three attempts to discuss conditions for an unblock with him. All I was trying to ascertain was the sort of restrictions that he would accept if unblocked." sounds like an attempt at debate to me. I appreciate your good intentions, but I see no reason for removing talk page access. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your point here. --Jayron32 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it was in TFM's best interest to subtly attack User:Access Denied, who, although his comments were very direct and possibly aggressive, was only trying to aide in the discussion. Edit summaries like "replies... and whoever access denied is, please leave the grownups alone" and "young man, go back to the clubhouse. this is not helping matters." are condescending and belittling of another editor. His comments in the discussion were silly and unhelpful, especially his last response to Jayron32. I would support the revocation of his talk page access, and I think discussing matters privately with Gimmetoo would be the most beneficial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• And you think this as a first comment from access denied out of the middle of nowhere is appropriate, in response to TFM's unblock request? And this response, when TFM clearly explains that it was a legitimate alternate account. Has he ever used a brother excuse or did access denied make that up? (As also can be seen from TFM's comment, he can be serious, for those who say he never is) Silverseren^C 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe TFM on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comments AD made on his talk page either, but it wasn't like TFM was responding to a personal attack with another one. And, FWIW, TFM claims User:Mike R is his brother (though I highly doubt it, since they both edit the RefDesk and have the same idea of humor). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The childish immature idiocy displayed both here at ANI and at TFM's talk page must be giving him a great laugh; it certainly is giving one to the entire Wiki. Yes, MikeR is TFM's brother, and why anyone doubts that is beyond me. Does anyone pay attention here? Why isn't TFM unblocked yet, and his talk page access restored? Is there some intensely satisfying thrill in blocking someone who has ten times the intelligence of the average AN/I hangers-on, or do people honestly not know of his contributions? Either way, it's certainly good fodder for a laugh while an unfortunate indication of the extent to which the children have taken over Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, Bad edits r dumb was NOT a legitimate alternate account despite his claim. It was a clear good-hand/bad-hand sock account which existed solely for the purpose of trolling. Given that the TFM account has quality article edits to fall back one, one can at least claim that the person behind them maybe, perhaps, at one time was willing to do some article work. But the BERD account was absolutely beyond the pale. And the brother comment was predicated by TFM claiming that User:Mike R was his brother, a claim I might note that was not confirmed and was likely just more trolling. --Jayron32 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, you are supposed to assume good faith that Mike R is his brother, like he added here. If you don't have any proof otherwise, then it shouldn't even be talked about. Silverseren^C 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that Mike R had confirmed that. You can ignore any objections I had to that. My mistake. --Jayron32 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you still talking about him? He's gone, he can't post in his page: everybody wins. Stop wasting text on him. HalfShadow

Okay, your response is definitely not appropriate and clearly biased. Silverseren^C 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) (repsonse to Halfshadow) Because some people believe he should be able to post on his page, and those people have a right to be heard. I take your post to mean that you support the revocation of his talkpage access, however reasonable people may disagree, which is why discussions like this can be important. --Jayron32 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can tell me how someone who's posts over the last week basically boil down to "Hurr-de-durr; I can haz cheezburger" help as a whole, I'm not seeing your point. HalfShadow 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the point. I agree with you 100%. I think his talk page access should be shut down, since I fully believe he has no intention to do anything else except piss off as many people as possible. However, I also believe that I am not the sole arbiter of all situations at Wikipedia, and as strongly as I hold my beliefs, I also recognize that it is unhelpful to ignore the opinions of others in matters such as this. I believe his talk page access should be removed. That's why I was the one who removed it. But I also don't think that my opinion on this should be the only one that matters. Now, if given at least 24 hours or so, it may turn out my opinion is the right one. Or it may be the wrong one. But we won't know if we don't talk it out, now will we. --Jayron32 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Because this user's edits to their talk page were not constructive, removing talk page access was appropriate. They have been told who to contact if they want their block reviewed.  Sandstein  23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Drmies (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Please, please close this thread. To those who are concerned, repeatedly making jokes when told to stop is disrupting the wiki to make some sort of point, and whatever "incivility" Access Denied (talk · contribs) may have committed does not excuse incivility on the part of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Best advice was already given by Rd232 above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closing this wouldn't be proper when there is disagreement on the revoking of talk page access, which there does seem to be, since opinion is split. Silverseren^C 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user apparently no longer here to contribute to the project. Sarcasm and "jokes" on a talk page is hardly a worthy contribution when you are blocked, and demonstrates the user no longer wants to be part of the project. Let the unblock mailing list handle this so editors can move onto more useful things. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• We do not usually remove talk page access except for repeated use of the {{unblock}} template. That didn't happen here. WP:BLOCK says "editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page". TFM was discussing the unblock, which was appropriate and constructive. Removal of talk page access is highly frustrating to the user, and should only be used in extreme circumstances. I don't see that here. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page content

I know the discussion above isn't finished, but I don't see any real reason to keep the content(aside from the declined unblock requests) per the trolling, per WP:DENY. Earlier today IP socks were trying to restore the user's userpage.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What content are you referring to exactly? If you mean discussions that TFM was involved in, then I disagree. (And I hope you are not referring to his comments, because you would then be calling him a troll, which consensus has definitely not determined to be true or not above). Silverseren^C 10:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is clear trolling, as is many of the other comments on that page by him. Do you really want me to pull up diffs?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been abiding that restriction! I showed up on AN/I to sow seeds of lulz and destruction ONLY WHEN Eagles 24-7 started that ridiculous discussion about me for calling someone "dumb". Emphasis mine. There are plenty others, and most of them are pretty clear trolling.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Except, as is being discussed above, there are users who believe that that is just sarcasm. Please join the discussion above if you believe differently, as you seem to. Silverseren^C 10:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a large difference between sarcasm and trolling, and that is definitely not sarcasm.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated previously, please join the discussion above, as other users disagree with you. Silverseren^C 10:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And you're clearly one of them, so why don't you give some examples of this sarcasm you speak of, because I'm not seeing it; only continued laughter in the face of users trying to help.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• When it gets to a point where every single post is silly, and not a single one has anything of any serious value to add to the discussion, then I think it's very fair to suggest that this user is clearly being disruptive. We have made it quite clear to Fat Man that a lot of people don't find his sheer amount of so-called "humourous posts" amusing in the slightest, and he has completely ignored suggestions to tone it down. Jayron32 made a perfectly reasonable, sincere and helpful offer to Fat Man, and he responded with this. Completely deliberate, unhelpful and disruptive. I cannot see how this is not proof that he just doesn't take this place seriously. There is sarcasm for a bit of light humour, and then there is completely unnecessary and uncooperative "sarcasm". I'm not even sure why we're wasting any more time on this user, because it really seems like we're feeding the troll his dessert at this point. --Dorsal Axe 11:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, no one has stated the obvious; that his comments are sarcasm AND trolling; I'm not sure why people feel that these are mutually exclusive states of mind. Sure, he's being sarcastic. Sure he's telling jokes. Sure he's amusing himself. That he's doing it just to get a rise out of as many people as possible (the sarcasm and the jokes) is why it is trolling. --Jayron32 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Never feed the trolls.

You know what gets me? He won't even behave himself long enough to get unblocked, in order to continue whatever he thinks he's doing. In the circumstances, it's beyond me why others feel the need to agitate on his behalf. It's not like he can't speak for himself: he just chose not to. Even now, he still has email as an option available. In the mean time, let's just give him the chance to live up to his username. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what gets me is that he's currently blocked indefinitely, is an acknowledged sockpuppeteer, is abusing his talk page while blocked, and yet his various friends keep reverting his user page to his nice, pretty, version without the indefblocked and sockpuppeteer templates. The rules should be the same for everyone. This entire dramafest is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here on Wikipedia, and probably belongs at WP:LAME. If he's blocked he ought to be blocked and remain blocked under the same rules as everyone else, with the appropriate tags and everything. If people want to be "nice" to him because they want him to come back and amuse them then just unblock the guy now and let him do whatever he wants. That's basically what he does anyway. Please just shit or get off the pot already. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And before all of his pals come here and jump all over me with their snark, this isn't even about this particular guy. I don't know him and couldn't care less. What I'm bloody sick of is the absurd and blatant nepotism and totally unfair and uneven application of policy, this elephant in the room nobody ever wants to talk about or deal with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the most telling moments was when one of his supporters went to his talk page and chided him for continuing his behavior, and he responded sarcastically. That ought to seal the deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the difference between joking inappropriately and trolling? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mocking an admin who's trying to help you is a pretty good example of covering both options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

TFM's userpage needs the correct templates

TFMs friends have reverted his userpage to his preferred version and then protected it. The account is blocked indefinitely and is an acknowledged sockpuppeteer and everyone should be treated the same here, no special rules for special people. Please place the templates back in where they belong and apply policy and administrative process in a consistent manner. If the templates are not to be used anymore, then send them to MfD. Nepotism is not a legitimate reason to treat someone differently than others. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we all have better things to do than worry about the status of a blocked user's userpage not long after blocking. At any rate, in this instance worrying about it may constitute feeding the troll. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about his individual userpage, it's about objectively treating everyone the same across the board, whether they're someone's friend or not. I think that's a very important thing to be concerned with. Anyway, I am washing my hands of this political nonsense. People will do what they do. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically true, but keeping that joker indeffed is far more important to the project than whether or not his self-pity/mockery stays visible. Give it some time. If he starts socking again, his support will likely melt away. And if he doesn't, then all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think referring to another editor as a "joker" is particularly helpful? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that he and his pals would consider "joker" to be a compliment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Such templates aren't needed in the near-aftermath of an indef block, moreover if outcomes are still being talked about. I protected the userpage only because all the back and forth over them stirs things up even more. Any admin can still put templates there, following their take on consensus about the block and the editor's standing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Gawd, this is boring. So, would all of you who are messing with TFM's talk page please remember to go and do the same thing to Mattisse (talk · contribs)'s talk page? Now there is real sockmaster, yet somehow, TFM gets special rules; looks like folks aren't paying attention. Is school out or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Last1234

This user is basically using Wikipedia as a blog and apparently nothing else. As they're Spanish, I'm not sure warnings would accomplish much. Could someone fluent inform him/her that we're not here so they can talk about their day? HalfShadow 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some diffs? I mean this and this is not a whole lot of material, which is the page prior to you blanking it. That much of a blog he can have, no? And blanking someone's user page is not very nice. But he hasn't done anything else at WP, either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's my point: that's literally all they're doing; check any edit from his contribution list. We're essentially being used as a blog by this guy. HalfShadow 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All edits seem to be to their user page - gotta agree. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"these i love? let me know when you go to go I'm here to eat if you send a msg that I thought I was gonna eat it avias ia seen, because I ate one evening I had wings and white soup .. ok no alcanse not see ke ke and ate good antojaton I love wings and gave me time almorse ambre grabs a single with potato Takita esque love my mother that we ate only echo my brother is not, so I expect more tanito Later, he went to Aeon teran about the other guy turns .-- and I took a bottle of water, but it passed the vdd .. ambre ke kiero ok but not bad going t kiero ke estes bn eat many tortillas t eat? I ate 2 love stoy I'm mal-paso qe NADM cmiendo well in the morning my mom gave us tangerines to my bro and i ami I ate like 3 for that and in the morning, breakfast biscuits Coko. if tragooo of more: S I'm a pig. ambre I have much love bb and t extranio HOW can you do you're going to borrow money from dany or wave I miss you t remember tmabien ke avia he paid 20 pesos to a senior to go to truck ke returned it to me and dani me peresto 50 cones and the ntp ago sii love is good, with that the aces is good to have the lunch at 4:30 so you do not forget, if you c love leave at half past four I will not eat love ke oki then i eat afueraaa ... or algooo cometee ai ke tacos sold out or a cake. aurita love me if I buy something if you open aver puestesito outside where they sell cakes Jaaj oki is good if you can not talk much we talk right now .. NTPP for these seating ke t going to take oke? NADM not you say well, if they are your bosses ai. aseleres ok i do not no no t worry if it takes me is ke I can not answer but left the vato aki ke estava aaOK this Abii I love deciia.aa Ndama I have a lot flojeraa: S and T, and love simple salts and lack pokito This is the ultimate long extranio t ce and bb if I'm missing some, please Czech times when Tengs time, I feel weird and dicindote this will porqe all day I was angry. but hey tmb xs I miss you hope to see you soon that was what i feel strange desirme ke tambn me extranias and I hope you love me and see me soon? No longer is neither qe said. the schedules. qe checks do not want you to stay next week nurse at night. I'm tired tmb: (morning show?"

Yeah, fine. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned the user about this problem. If it continues, a block is required.  Sandstein  23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently there was another Spanish-speaking blogger, user Ryute, although there's no other apparent connection that I'm seeing offhand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The porn chatter? That was fun. I don't see any connection either. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Userpage nonsense + inappropriate personal info = RevisionDeletion candidate. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

visually impaired user with Asperger's syndrome has sought assistance with ongoing issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Ww111 now understands what happened, acknowledges that good faith was behind what other editors were doing/saying, is willing to abide within the policies and wants to "move on." Further talk about this can carry forward at the editor's talk page, if needed or wanted. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

A visually impaired user with Asperger's symdrom has sort assistance via a form on the wrongplannet.net website: http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813

As he feels he has been a victim of cyberbullying and has suffered a meltdown.

He says he has been unable to resolve the dispute, or identify how to as he has great difficulty navigating the wikipedia site, undoubtedly due to his visual imparement, but Asperger's is a type of none veral learning disability, which affects people differently, but can mean that some people have near insurmountable difficulty in none verbal communication or forms of social communication.

People with the Syndrom can also have quite extreams of emotion or sensory perception, resulting in what's called a meltdown, which can be quite traumatic, even though to a more typical person the event may seem quite minor. (for instance, some people can have a melt down when it's raining because of their sensitivity to touch)

Due to this rather odd circumstance I felt it better to raise the issue of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as the person may well need quite significant assistance and guidance beyond a more normal or more draw out approach.

he says the pages involved are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2PR_FM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2PR_FM#2PR_FM

and that his user-name/login has been blocked as he's undone the changes a number of times.

I realise that the normal approach would probably be page protection, asking for a ban on the other use [possibly] and getting his account re-instanted, but he couldn't even find out how to reach the admin sections and asked on wrongplannet if anyone was a wikipedia admin.

I'm passing a link to this onto him, I've put a link to the discussion on wrong planet above and below.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.230 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of that will be happening. While it may be difficult for him to grasp, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Whitewater11 was in the wrong and the people he is asking to have things done to were in the right.—Kww(talk) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of those pages have been deleted. You should communicate to him that that he can't have whatever he wants on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism for special treatment of users with handicaps in terms of what content it accepts. Also, users are treated the same socially regardless of their handicaps. That is because the goal is to write an encyclopedia. Although anyone is allowed to edit, their edits must meet Wikipedia policies or they will be deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Becritical, but comments like "users are treated the same socially regardless of their handicaps" are completely unacceptable. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia has a policy of excluding people with handicaps. I hope that this is not what you intended. Wikipedia's policies are byzantine and obscure enough even for those of us without visual or social handicaps, to suggest that we should not attempt to support editors with such disabilities is just crass. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Becritical, but it may be better to say that Wikipedia does whatever it can to be accomodating to people's disabilities, but that in this case asking that Wikipedia's core policies be set aside does not amount to an accomodation. That is, there is nothing inherently discriminatory about equal application of WP:5P. Policies like this are relevent to content, not to persons. Nothing has been done here that represents a lack of accomodation for the user's disability. I don't really see how having disabilities necessarily trumps the requirement to follow core Wikipedia policies. This is my stance on the issue; I am fully willing to see that users are able to work within Wikipedia as fully as possible, including working to include people who, for whatever reason, need to access and work with Wikipedia in nontraditional ways, perhaps because of a disability. However, content must be judged on its own merit. --Jayron32 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just a rather poor choice of words on his part. I'm sure he did not imply that we should exclude people based on handicap in the slightest. Yes. we do need to be accommodating to those with special needs, but at the same time they cannot use said handicap as a disruptive battering ram; we already saw this happen with User:Sven70 a while back. –MuZemike 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would have been unacceptable if it were untrue. Can you tell me of an instance in which users are treated differently in the social milieu of Wikipedia because of their handicaps? Of course I understand that individual editors may make allowances -I certainly have in the past-, but I'm not aware of anything beyond our general environment of collaboration; and that of course is extended to all users. I'm not aware of any policy or any general guideline or other way in which Wikipedia recommends handicapped users be treated differently, but if I'm wrong but please enlighten me. However, calling what I said "crass" seems very uncalled for. It was completely factual so far as I know, and it was also in no way inconsiderate. The user was asking for special treatment of some kind or else the meltdown wouldn't have been relevant and wouldn't have been included. We can feel sorry all we want, but I just don't know how we would treat a handicapped user differently here. I came in after Kww, who I thought was rather brusque, and tried to explain things in a more thorough way. He says "none of that will be happening...While it may be difficult for him to grasp..." and then you get after me for poor choice of words? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But to return to our sheep, it is possible that someone at WP:WPACCESS may be able to offer assistance or advice. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone from the off-wiki site wants to point the user towards my talkpage, I work with Asperger's children and young people on a daily basis, and may be able to assist. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the one with asperger's and am not in a position to touch any of the articles, as they are both about me and my station, thus if I do any edits, this would be a Conflict of interest on my behalf. However I find this material about Wikipedia rather contradictive, as for example, the 2PR FM article had a number of third party sources, and so did my article. I found it bizarre how the article on WSFM 101.7 does not get challenged as all it's references are from the station's website, without any third party references. Can you tell me why they seems to be one standard for one, and another stand for another with this issue. Stating what Wikipedia is and what it is not, is beside the issue if their is no consistancy of conduct. MBoerebach (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Wikipedia has 6,823,949 articles in it, it takes a long time to go through every one. The fact that someone, who is dedicated to finding it, can easily discover an article or two which does not meet the current Wikipedia policy is unsurpirisng. Wikipedia articles are judged against established guidelines, not against each other, largely for this reason. Thank you for working hard to find articles which are not appropriate to Wikipedia. However, the existance of other articles is really irrelevent towards discussing the merits of the article you created. --Jayron32 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it appears someone from Wikipedia (going by the name "TheAnthropologist") seen this here on ANI and is there to help on WrongPlanet. I recommend Whitewater111/MBoerebach stop making new accounts and work with this user. I would also recommend that another, neutral admin go to WrongPlanet and help out as well. Once that takes place and the user understands the processes of Wikipedia, I would recommend giving them the option to request an unblock (which I hope they would) and work with the adminship if they wish to resubmit their article about their radio station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically we do have consistency, but clearly with 3,000,000+ articles there will inevitably be some that dip below or rise above those markers. I'd agree that WSFM 101.7 is a shockingly badly sourced article, though it looks probably notable. Meanwhile, the sources in the 2PR FM article I would suggest are more suited to back up the notability of your article (which I note is up for deletion at the moment) because they mainly talk about you - I would suggest you add them to your own article and mention 2PR there. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into a tit for tat battle, the accusation of noting thatI've created several accounts is offensive. As I noted above, I'm not editing any of the articles, because I indeed have a conflict of interest. I find that three of my articles withing the space of a week being targeted for deletion rather threatening. For all we know Kww and AussieLegend be the same person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBoerebach (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Kww and AussieLegend are not the same person. They are clearly two different people. However, looking at Whitewater111 (talk · contribs)'s contributions, the only thing they have solely done after creation is try to get your article kept at the AfD. It's reasonable to assume they're your sock, and we don't take kindly to votestacking here.

In their very first edits, they seem to automatically know how to use wikipedia markup and sign their posts.. not typical behavior of 'new' users. Secondly, looking through their contributions, you both also share some similarities. For instance, in the post above this one, you use the word 'noting' in reference to Homer accusing you of abusing multiple accounts, and here, the sock uses roughly the same language; you use variants of 'noted' quite often. Another diff.

Given the above information regarding this case, I'm going to request a CU. If they are your sock, I suggest you admit it now, unless you want to risk a block on your main account.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the CU when you create it. I recommend an uninvoled admin block the MBoerebach sock and leave the main account, Whitewater111, unblocked....if it is shown to by the CU to have only the one sock. I recommend this because the user is (I believe) new and does have Aspergers with limited eyesight. This should be taken into account when deciding what to do. I know this won't be the most popular recommendation and I am probably stepping on some rules, but I feel leeway is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I came a bit late, but I don't think a block is necessary right here right now. We know it's him and he knows we know it's him and as long as he only uses one account from now on, there's no abuse going on. However I would take this opportunity to warn him that any further use of additional accounts, even just one, will be taken as evidence of attempting to evade scrutiny and could lead to a block of all of them. —Soap— 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three confirmed accounts. I would very much like to know why MB decided to lie to us.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Both about the alternate accounts and editing the article, as that is what the alternate accounts did.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding here. I don't read anything that MB said above, as trying to say that he did not have multiple accounts (although I can see it is very easy to read it that way). He could see that we've already been given the link to where he admits off-wiki to getting banned at least twice, so it seems there would be little point in such a deception. I also read "I'm not editing any of the articles" as meaning that he is not doing so at present and won't in the future (presumably after the idea of COI was pointed out to him), not that none of his accounts had ever done so in the past. (Whether any of his accounts edited any of the articles after he said "I'm not editing any of the articles", I haven't checked.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

MB, after reading the various things said and done by your accounts and the IP you used, and the polite warnings given by AussieLegend and others, I would also suggest you should apologise to AussieLegend, JayJg and Kww. Cyber-bullying is a major problem that should be taken seriously, and it is very unpleasant for people to be accused of it just because of how you reacted to them not agreeing with content you wanted to put on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the main account, the user has declared the three accounts and an IP. Though late, this is a good faith effort by the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is utter bullshit. While WP:NOTTHERAPY is only an essay, those who cry "Asperbergers!" or "Rage Disorder!" when behaving badly are playing the "discrimination game". I was diagnosed with PTSD after getting a knife stuck in my throat many years ago: it's true, but how do you all know I'm not lying about it? And even if it was a lie, does it really matter when it comes to editing this encyclopedia? WP doesn't discriminate against editors with handicaps based on their handicaps, but it shouldn't even be an issue unless its wielded by editors that are already in "trouble" who then cry "Foul!" Asperbergers sufferers, ADHDers, bipolars: edit away, please! You are most welcome to! If you use it as an excuse for problems you encounter editing here, it's not the community's fault. Seriously... Doc talk 08:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As of good faith I did declaire my situation, but may I explain what triggered off this whole scenario. AussieLegend made a statement that setting up an internet station takes no effort. I attempted to explain that setting up such an operation does take much effort and time. After this, within the space of five minutes, not only did I get a ban, but message that I was disrupting activity on wikipedia. This was not a difference of opinion, this was a straight personal attack, insinuating that I was a lazy person that does nothing. I then had to set up a second account to explain this. I still have the entire log as proof. I then came back to another discussion today, where another user described my website having blank pages, I didn't appreciate that either, and I also don't like how admins can just take the high moral ground, because they simply don't agree with something. And as for apologies, why should I? I'm quite sure if I came into a shop, which you spent many years setting up, and I said, "that took no effort", I think you would feel just as insulted. Maybe some of these admins might want to learn a little tact and decorum, before making such ignorant comments. This is how you avoid messes like this in the first place. Whitewater111 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a great many things which are difficult to do which are not notable (in the Wikipedia sense) and shouldn't have articles about them. Conversely, some things that are notable (in the Wikipedia sense) are probably easier to do than falling off a log. Notability and ease of doing don't really have anything to do with each other. The article on your station was deleted because there wasn't sufficient evidence of its notability, not because it's either easy or difficult to set up an internet radio station -- for you or for anybody else. And while there may be notability in someone overcoming handicaps to be successful, that notabilty would be for the person and not necessarily for their project, the notability of which must be established separately.

All that said, I can see nothing that could be construed as a personal attack on you. Critical evaluation of articles is a core part of the way things work around here. It can be annoying, it can feel personal at times (and at times it's probably meant that way), but it's the nature of the beast. If you're planning to stick around, better get used to it, or develop strategies for dealing with it (sometimes easier said than done), 'cause it's not likely to go away any time soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is one thing that we can easily settle. Whitewater 111 should restrict himself to the one account. Whether it is that one, or another. Once he has decided which account he wants to use, then the others should be indeffed.

With respect to COI issues, any proposed edits should be raised at the talk page of the article in question first. If an editor is open about COI, then it is less likely that they are going to be pushing a particular POV. If an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page, rather than being re-reverted and getting into an edit war. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to make things worse, but there is a deletion debate about the proprietor of 2PR FM at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boerebach which I've recently commented on. Maybe my notability standards are a bit uptight, but I don't think that local newspapers/magazines really count when assessing notability. With all due respect, Mark, I don't think that either you or your radio station are quite notable enough for Wikipedia ... yet! Nor do I think that disability has much to do with this thread, as a blind Person with AS. Graham87 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Graham, I agree that 2PR FM may not of been notable in the sense of some wikipedians in relation to it's policies, but this whole issue would of been avoided if AussieLegend showed some interest on the talk page, independent of whether 2PR FM was to be deleted or not. What got my back up was that he was rather annoyed that I had an official call sign for my station, though I was only an internet station. It seemed he had his gloves off wanting a confrontation. He repeatedly noted that "starting an internet station was like switching on a webcam" which really riled my feathers. I've hated this whole scenario, and wish to god that it never happened, but when someone deliberately stirs the pot, then some unexpedted consequences can happen. Though I may of not said it enough, I feel rather awful about this whole mess, but cannot emphasise how intimidating some of the stuff has been. My initial efforts of starting new accounts was to just try to avoid the fire, but it seemed the fire was just following me where ever I was going. To confirm, I'm using the account Whitewater111, and am not using any of the other accounts, I think two of them have been banned anyway, hense this whole mess. Maybe admins can hold off a ban threat, even if another user has a differing opinion, which was the trigger to this complete scenario Whitewater111 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did you get this "official" callsign from? As I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2PR FM,[16] in Australia callsigns are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and a check of the publicly accessible registers don't show you as a client, or a registration for 2PR. The "FM" component of the callsign is grossly misleading as "FM" is reserved for radio stations that transmit in the FM broadcast band using frequency modulation, which is certainly not the case with 2PR FM, which web-casts over the internet using digitised audio. You would never be issued 2PR FM by the ACMA.

I think you should read the discussion at Talk:Sydney again. You immediately went on the defensiveoffensive when I suggested that the reason Bidgee reverted your edit was that 2PR FM is not notable, suggesting that he was from an opposing media group[17] and complaining about "stroppy deletionists that want to assert their authority".[18] In response to your claim that newspaper articles established notability I said "It's not hard to get newspaper article coverage, significant coverage is a different issue. AM/FM radio stations are real radio stations; anyone can start an internet radio station. It's really no different to setting up a webcam. We don't call people using webcams TV stations." You did not receive harrassing messages on your talk page, as you claimed at the sockpuppet investigation.[19] The messages were as a result of you failing to assume good faith and for the personal attacks that you made, calling other editors ignorant[20] and fools.[21] And then there was deleting the entire discussion.[22] After you created Whitewater111 you started making some WP:POINTy edits to 101.7 WSFM,[23] including copying and pasting the AfD notice from 2PR FM into that article, not once, but three times,[24][25][26] despite edit summaries making it clear that the notice was not applicable to that article and a post on your talk page.[27] (Should I mention that your response to that request was to make a false AIV complaint?[28]) Eventually I had to bring the matter here.[29] After disappearing for a few days your first and only edit before today was to delete the AfD notice from 2PR FM. So, we have an SPA editor making COI edits, failing to assume good faith, making personal attacks, WP:POINTy edits, edit warring, false AIV reports, vandalism and sockpuppetry, and recreating a deleted article. If you weren't visually impaired with Asperger's syndrome, I suspect you wouldn't even be able to contribute to this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you delete my replies, of course I'm going to take offence, but again, you just keep hammering this, "starting an internet station is no different from starting a webcam" which is the whole point of this confrontation. I referred to people looking like fools, when they note something takes no effort at all, when knowing nothing about what is involved. Everytime you come after me, you look like a monster desparetly wanting it's pray. Do us all a favour and let go of it, I'm really sorry that I did give my station a real name, and am sorry that it really got up your nose. I'm a person with disabilities, and just trying to make a go of it like everybody else. Can somebody please end and delete this discussion now, as this guy is just wanting to keep stirring the pot. Whitewater111 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete your replies. However, you deleted an entire thread at Talk:Sydney, and a post here.[30] Don't you think the people whose posts you deleted have the right to take offence? If anyone is hammering the difference between a radio station and a webcast, that's you too. You did it at the AfD, the SPI discussion and you've done it here. At the SPI and here it was done as justification for what you've done. As for letting go, may I remind you, it was you who has been disruptive, you who deleted AfD notices, you who added invalid AfD notices, you who complained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2PR FM and you who started whining at wrongplanet. You really need to start taking responsibility and stop blaming others. I'm very sorry that you have disabilities but that's not justification for doing wrong by others and being disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @Whitewater111: We can delete your reply if they are personal attacks and using the talk page as a forum. You may have put some effort into setting up and running the station but it doesn't make it notable. Radio stations which broadcast on AM/FM/DAB+ are automatically deemed as notable due to the fact most are owned by big networks (which are owned by big companies) and the fact that they need a license from ACMA, internet radio stations can be set-up by anyone nor doe they need a license from ACMA so notability needs to be very good and proven with reliable and verifiable sources. Your the one who took this issue here, you can't tell them to stop discussing the facts. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise the original post at wrongplanet by Whitewater111 as whining. In the circumstances, I would characterise it as a particularly nasty form of off-wiki stealth canvassing - asking if anyone is a Wikipedia admin so that they can ban another editor with whom he had a dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't actually read everything, just the main points, so I was assuming good faith but having read your post I decided to take a closer look. "Attempts to discuss any problems with him result in flaming responses. I've also received personal attacks in my PMs folder, and has threatened to block me with his administrator standing. I would idealy like to get him banned." Excuse me Whitewater111? Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies and WTF? I call on Whitewater11 to immediately provide proof of all of the above. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That may not be the falsehood you naturally perceive it as, just more exaggeration coupled with some misunderstanding. Some of the things he's said have suggested he could be thinking of his talk page as his "PMs folder", and I'm sure at least one of the many warnings he has received would've said "you may be blocked". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that he has admitted that he has used Wikipedia to improve his rankings "During January, I got some press coverage, which led to my station being listed on wikipedia, which had greatly improved my google ranking and visitor flow to my site.[31]" which is where the WP:SPAM (See: WP:ARTSPAM) comes into play. Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I accidently deleted the entire discussion by mistake, but if you look closely at the log times, you'll see that it was a matter of seconds before I realised what I did, and tried correcting it. Remember I have Asperger Syndrome and a visual impairement. There is a lot of things which are being totally blown out of preportion. As I originally said, check the discussion for Sydney. I commented on that internet radio does take effort to set up, as per AussieLegends line, "setting up a internet station is like turning on a webcam". This is were all this stuff started. I feel this discussion is just going around in a flame war, with nothing further to be obtained out of it. What more can I say, I rest my case. Whitewater111 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your "I accidently deleted the entire discussion by mistake" claim doesn't seem genuine because you made your intentions clear when you wrote "I've decided to delete the descussion".[32] Or was that by accident too? You seem to be blaming a lot on your Asperger's. Don't you have a little brother? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with AussieLegend, your behaviour has nothing to do with Aspergers or the visual impairment. I have seen those with Aspergers live a normal life and not use "it wasn't my fault, my finger did it" excuses. It is almost as bad as someone drink driving and blaming someone else because they had a drink too many. You and only you, is responsible for your own actions. No this discussion isn't turning in to a "flame war" (personal attacking) it is about your behaviour on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel really bad about this, and I'm genuinely sorry for the stress and harm that I have caused. Analysing what I have done, I think I took AussieLegends comments as literally, (a problem with asperger's), and because of that, I took offense and paniced. Because I paniced, I had done much irrational moves, and in the end made a mess of things. I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said, and whether they do mean any harm, which is why I did the things that I've done. Can I turn back time and repair the damage? No. Can I make right the damage that I've done here on wikipedia? I don't know, and most probably not. I guess wikipedians are not mind readers, and in the end, I have to learn to deal with this. The more I realised I was doing something wrong, I didn't know what to do, and carried on, not realising the damage I was doing. So in the end, my genuine apologies, and please believe me, I don't use this asperger's as an excuse, it messes up ones mind, and I'd do anything to jump out of it. I wish the last three days of my life didn't happen, but now that it is done, I have to deal with it, and move on. I think for the benefit of all, and as good will, I think it be wise if I close my accounts. Whitewater111 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Two questions for Whitewater111

Do you feel that it is beneficial to you, for you to use Wikipedia, even though ordinary talk page notices as widely used by most editors are constantly intimidating to you and cause you significant upset? And when regular content disputes have a similar effect?

Do you plan to edit Wikipedia in any topic areas unrelated to promotion of your radio station business?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a combination of things which I found upsetting, first the articles all being deleted at once, and being threatened when making a statement. Whitewater111 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think AussieLegend was drawing attention to the fact that setting up an internet radio station is relatively trivial compared to an FM broadcast radio station (dramatically so). I don't think the intention was to belittle your efforts. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I messed up and misunderstood a comment at the start, so how can I correct the damage? Should I withdraw any complaints that i've made? Whitewater111 (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone here but generally speaking, incidents like this tend to be quickly forgotten. Apologize and move on and everything should be OK. —Soap— 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully this thread can then be closed and it will get archived off all the sooner (there is no need to delete anything, although you can optionally use strikethrough on any comments of your own that you choose to withdraw.) The SPI is a further problem but I guess a related one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel really bad about this, and I'm genuinely sorry for the stress and harm that I have caused. Analysing what I have done, I think I took AussieLegends comments as literally, (a problem with asperger's), and because of that, I took offense and paniced. Because I paniced, I had done much irrational moves, and in the end made a mess of things. I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said, and whether they do mean any harm, which is why I did the things that I've done. Can I turn back time and repair the damage? No. Can I make right the damage that I've done here on wikipedia? I don't know, and most probably not. I guess wikipedians are not mind readers, and in the end, I have to learn to deal with this. The more I realised I was doing something wrong, I didn't know what to do, and carried on, not realising the damage I was doing. So in the end, my genuine apologies, and please believe me, I don't use this asperger's as an excuse, it messes up ones mind, and I'd do anything to jump out of it. I wish the last three days of my life didn't happen, but now that it is done, I have to deal with it, and move on. I think for the benefit of all, and as good will, I think it be wise if I close my accounts. Whitewater111 (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello User:Whitewater111, I've been following this for a while now, and while you might have caused a bit of a stir, please don't feel that you've caused any damage to the project. I don't think it's wise to close your account (main one, I mean). You have much to learn, and everyone starts somewhere. Perhaps an apology to AussieLegend is in order, though - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology to just AussieLegend? Whitewater111 (under an IP) unfairly accused me of being in/part of a opposing media group not once but twice (which is not correct as I infact do not work for ANY media groups, whether it would be TV, Radio or Newspapers) and also attack both of us. Bidgee (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, to you as well. I keep forgetting to type things out. Sorry mate - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Again I would like to Apologise to AussieLegend and Bidgee, who unfortunately copped some of my misdirected behaviour. I actually thought Bidgee was AussieLegend, until I looked again later on, realising it was Bidgee. Again, I have made a big mistake, and assumed that if it was okay for WSFM to appear on wikipedia, that it would be the same for my station. As I said, I can't correct what I've done in the past, I can only learn from it, and move on, this has been a rather sharp and confronting learning curve for me. Whitewater111 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitewater111, something that stood out for me in what you said was: I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said. If I understand AS correctly, one of the signature behaviours is over-analysis, so I would advise you not to tie yourself in knots trying to figure out what's going on. Presumably the panic is caused by being unsure how to interpret what people are saying and therefore how to react (weak central coherence in action)? Perhaps a good way out of that is to ask people to clarify and to tell you how they would like you to respond? I suspect there must be a higher than normal proportion of Aspies / Aspergians round Wikipedia, so you're in good company. Maybe a few of the editors over at the AS article would be up for creating an AS community project for mutual support?     ←   ZScarpia   15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the hard part is realising that I've made a genuine mistake, and that some still take it as a mask or cop out of my behaviour. I guess I wouldn't know half the people on the internet for who they are, as we are all sitting behind a keyboard, not knowing if we are dealing with someone in Canada, Africa, or America. What I do know is my condition. I guess the alarm bells finally rang, when AussieLegend pointed out the things I did. I honestly thought I blanked the discussion on one of the other forums by mistake, but now remember deleting it, because it was going around in a flame war, which I did not know how to deal with. As I noted in my original apology, I panicked, and found myself having a meltdown, which resulted in me doing what I did. All this was from the three articles that were about me, all being proposed for deletion within a week. I'm sorry if some users find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that I have aspergers, but I guess all this wouldn't of happened, if I wasn't taking certain things literally.. Whitewater111 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option, from an outsider reader, would be a short note on your userpage requesting whatever kind of assistance you find most helpful. It could be something like, "I would greatly appreciate people letting me know if they think I have made a mistake. I don't always realize it. Also, sometimes I overreact in tense situations; if you think I have done so, please accept my apology and let me know." Whether you mention your condition on your userpage is up to you, but as long as you don't go overboard with it, most users would probably be happy to help you edit successfully here. Ocaasi (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking along the same lines. Whitewater111, I was going to recommend placing a section at the top of your talk page explaining how Asperger's affects you and outlining ways in which other editors can act in order to help prevent mutual misunderstandings. You could place a link to the section from within your signature to draw attention to it. You say that it seems as if some users are having difficulties believing that you have Asperger's. If it's any comfort, I think that it's clear that you do and that you're not mentioning it as an excuse rather than as an explanation.     ←   ZScarpia   20:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is where I need help, this was the part I found very difficult to understand, and I guess where I really messed up. The statement, "Internet radio takes no effort, it's just like turning on a webcam". I guess the best thing I can do is invite someone around for a cup of tea, so I can educate them on how much effort is involved in setting up such an operation. Whitewater111 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all what needs to be said has been done, and just wondering if I could politely ask if this and the above discussions refering to me can be closed. Thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitewater111, I think that you need some more time around Wikipedia to really understand what may be confusing, or what you don't understand. Which briefly is as follows: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ARTICLES. For example the questions that seem to bother you are not questioning you, or your internet radio station, or whether or not it is real work, they are questioning whether or not the ARTICLE meets the Wikipedia criteria for existence. So, don't take any of this personally. Second, I don't think that you would want us to patronize you because you have a disability. Folks are treating you like the rest of us, like one of us. Stick around here like the rest of us, take a little heat (on occasion) like the rest of us, learn how Wikipedia works like the rest of us, move on like the rest of us, and have some fun here like the rest of us. I hope you have a good time here. Sincerely, North8000 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've made a mountain out of a mole heal. I realise I've handled this thing very poorly. One thing I've been upfront about, even on the wrong planet forum, is that I had a meltdown, and didn't know how to deal with the situation. The best I can do for the future is, if a similar situation arises, is to just walk away, and let it work it self out. When all three of my articles were proposed for deletion, I genuinely thought someone had an agenda, which scared the hell out of me. Now that the articles are not notable, I'm pretty much over it and want to move on, I just had a genuine fear, but handled it badly. Whitewater111 (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing disruptive editing by IP user 81.168.20.115

Over the past year, IP user 81.168.20.115 has been continuously adding unsourced details to the Bonnie Tyler article, despite several warnings by other editors not to do so (both in the article's edit summaries and three warnings on the IP user's talk page). The issue, concerning worldwide sales, has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page in the past and consensus is that such a detail should not be added to the article without definitive sources. User 81.168.20.115 (obviously an overzealous fan) has refused to enter into any discussion and has failed to respond to any warnings given, adding unsourced details back to the article regardless. I think perhaps a block would be beneficial. Diffs:-

• 16 Dec 2009
• 08 Jan 2010
• 21 Sep 2010
• 02 Dec 2010
• 03 Dec 2010
• 08 Dec 2010
• 08 Dec 2010 #2
• 09 Dec 2010

Kookoo Star (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block when there's been no real attempts (ie attempts that are not templated warnings) to engage this editor who may be acting in good faith. And it seems there might be some sources on the IP's side: [33], [34] The editor may have seen these news articles recently and added the content accordingly. If the sources are questionable, that is a discussion that needs to be had on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

i sent him a plate of cookies help him cool off. maybe that might be enough to chill his mizzerole and either way maybe it might alow for more collegial editing admonostrophere. User:Smith Jones 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the source mentioned by Mkativerata, a couple of articles from a site promoting Wales-online is hardly a definitive source for global record sales. They are neither an authority on the matter nor are they impartial (Bonnie Tyler is welsh, and they promote all things welsh). That source would fail WP:RS in a second. And given the dates of those articles (both within the past couple of weeks), you can see that they came after the IP user began adding their inaccurate details to the Bonnie Tyler article. If anything, it is likely the Wales-online website saw that incorrect information on Wikipedia, placed on here by the IP user, and used it. It is more than obvious that the IP user is not acting in good faith as s/he has had repeated warnings, there is already a lengthy discussion about this subject in particular on the article's talk page (which the IP user has failed to take part in), and the edit summaries of other people who have reverted his edits in the past year have clearly stated that the sales claim is unsourced and wildly inaccurate. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems is over-zealous fans who add all manner of excessive claims to articles of their idols. It undermines Wikipedia and is the kind of thing that gives it a bad reputation. As contributors, we should all be doing more to tackle this kind of blatant vandalism rather than allowing it to continue, especially when problematic editors have already been given the benefit of the doubt again and again. Kookoo Star (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs don't bear that out. This article was published on 23 November; the IP only started throwing in the 100 million figure on 2 December (before that the IP was pushing 80 million). I see no reason but to assume good faith here. It looks to me like a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP user has been adding exaggerated sales claims into this article for a year now - the diffs above prove it. What started out as content dispute then becomes vandalism when anonymous editors do not engage in discussion, do not gain consensus, do not add reliable sources, and refuse to heed warnings about edit warring. There is not a shred of evidence to assume good faith here. Perhaps a year ago, but certainly not now. It's probably only a matter of hours before they resume their edit warring. Kookoo Star (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, be careful, because there are two sides to every edit war. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this. Mkativerata, it is not edit warring when editors remove unsourced material. In fact, it is Wikipedia policy to do so, therefore warning user:Kookoo Star over this matter is inappropriate. Furthermore, looking through the article history shows that the sales claim of 100 million was first added by another IP user on 15th October 2010, which is before the Wales-online source you provided was written, so it is highly likely that source obtained such information from Wikipedia - regardless of who put it there in the first place. And Kookoo Star is correct, it wouldn't pass WP:RS anyway. However, whether you see this matter as vandalism or merely a content dispute, the fact remains that 81.168.20.115 has been continually re-adding this unsourced detail into the article despite existing consensus, numerous warnings and a refusal to engage with other editors. As an admin, you are entrusted to uphold Wikipedia's policies and should not be taking this so lightly - but it seems like you don't see this as a problem. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you aren't prepared to step in and at least take some form of action on this matter, then you are failing to do the job you have been entrusted with and perhaps you need to step aside from dealing with ANI reports so that they will be dealt with by more pro-active admins. GoldCoaster (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi,

after reverting twice an edit of Drjdemornay (talk · contribs) on the article Rebecca de Mornay, the user threatened me of legal actions: [35]. As per WP:NLT, I report these here. Badzil (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Wikimedia fraud department" - unless it is a secret one for perpetuating frauds. Seriously, this isn't a legal threat it is just a troll.--Scott Mac 01:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone calling his lawyers? Call that as you want but this is legal threat to me and therefore I'm reporting it. Badzil (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The account should probably be blocked for probable impersonation - unless he can verify his identity to OTRS.--Scott Mac 01:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No "Wikimedia fraud department" but that is definitely a legal threat. RBI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not ignore legal threats. We check to see if the user has reason for complaint (e.g. we really are libelling them). Then we block pending settlement of any outstanding legal dispute through the proper legal channels. Legal threats are not something we treat as vandalism - they may be entirely justified. It's just that people who wish to pursue legal avenues can't also edit wikipedia.--Scott Mac 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point there. In your block notice, do direct them to the OTRS email address in case this is a justified legal issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it helps to look at what's upset them and ask "is the complaint legitimate, and can I put it right?". Sometimes we end up jumping on people for perceived legal threats, while refusing to investigate the genuine libel they are legitimately complaining about. (see WP:DOLT.)--Scott Mac 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked by Scott MacDonald; I added on to the block reason for making legal threats. Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Badzil (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In future, please don't change my blocking reason without discussion. The blocking reason is now incomprehensible to any new editor and does not match the note I left for the user. Don't change an admin action without discussion - that was totally unnecessary.--Scott Mac 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Four points and three questions:

• I can find no evidence that Rebecca de Mornay actually has a brother by that name. A billionaire would likely be mentioned somewhere, I think. So who, precisely, is being impersonated?
• This is the second account to make the "I'm her brother." claim. The first was Monaco1112 (talk · contribs).
• This brother information was first introduced to the article by a third single-purpose account, Fidelio11 (talk · contribs).
• Fidelio10 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of Fidelio11, and reintroduced that same information.
• Has no-one yet noticed that this "from the family" information has de Mornay being the stepdaughter of her own stepbrother? And an "Angela" as her mother rather than the Julia George in de Mornay's printed biographies?
  • "The Key To Rebecca". Saturday Review. Vol. 12, no. 1. 1986. pp. 30–34. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Tykus, Michael J. (2000). "Rebecca de Mornay". Contemporary theatre, film, and television. Vol. 29. Gale Research Co. p. 135. ISBN 9780787631888. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
• Has no-one noticed that if this were a family member correcting stuff, the first thing that xe'd probably correct is the birth name, which is Rebecca George in all printed biographies (that I've read) that mention it and also is as listed in Room's Dictionary of Pseudonyms?
  • Room, Adrian (2010). "Rebecca De Mornay". Dictionary of Pseudonyms: 13,000 Assumed Names and Their Origins (5th ed.). McFarland. p. 141. ISBN 9780786443734. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
  • Segrave, Kerry; Martin, Linda (1990). "Rebecca de Mornay". The post-feminist Hollywood actress: biographies and filmographies of stars born after 1939. McFarland & Co. pp. 265–269. ISBN 9780899503875. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
  • Aylesworth, Thomas G.; Bowman, John S.; Fairbanks, Douglas (1992). "De Mornay, Rebecca". World guide to film stars. Great Pond. p. 69. ISBN 9781566570077. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
  • Sleeman, Elizabeth (2001). "De Mornay, Rebecca". The International Who's Who of Women 2002 (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 131. ISBN 9781857431223. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
  • Riggs, Thomas, ed. (2005). "De MORNAY, Rebecca". Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television: A Biographical Guide. Vol. 64. Gale / Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780787690373. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)

Quite why we're not thinking "sockpuppetting BLP vandal" at this point is a mystery.

Oh and the article is in need of some serious correction after all of this back and forth, too. There are some sources. Have at it. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• "She has an elder brother of one year who is now a Billionaire - Jonathan De Mornay". Um, yeah. Corvus cornix_talk 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This looks like a clumsy scam (with a hollow legal threat) to me. By the way, her father was Wally George, the southern California TV personality. He shuffled his birth name to get his stage name (George Walter Pearch > Wally George). de Mornay's birth name is also Pearch. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not in the biographies and dictionary it isn't. The only biography that states that is, in fact, ours. And we do so on the basis of something that is a dead external hyperlink, whose date doesn't agree with any of the actual biographies of de Mornay, and that itself provides no linkage to de Mornay. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • She's using her father's stage name (which was his legal first name) as her birth/family name. Things like that often happen with the Hollywood bios, acting resumés and publicity handouts of celebrity offspring, makes things easier. I'd think Pearch is quite verifiable and can be sourced one way or another but in the meantime, if editors are worried about this, I'd see nothing untowards at all about going for now with what can be sourced (George). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • imdb also uses the Pearch name, but of course, that isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • It's not, but nevertheless a strong hint the name can be verified elsewhere. As I've said, her father's name was indeed Pearch. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • This NYT bio lists Rebecca George as an alternate name (but not as birth name). I'm bringing this up only because if editors do want to cite the name Rebecca George, it's unlikely there's reliable support for calling that her birth name as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • There's this nonRS [36] which mentions the alleged billionare brother which appears to be from before any info was added to our article which suggests whatever is going on here it began outside wikipedia. Depending on the source, there are like 30-60 UK billionares so it would be extremely strange that there are no RS about this alleged billionare brother. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Imo this is not the sort of external link that we should be using to cite a different birthname and date http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/39461 for a start it is investigative reporting, you are not reporting a report you are looking around and attempting find it and asserting what you found is correct. IMO we have no reliable citation for either her dob or a birth name different from what she calls herself now. It sometimes seems that people are desperate to add details that are not widely reported, if the name is not widely reported then why report it? Same with her dob, there are three different dob's so keep it out of lead like that. Mirrors report what we have added and perpetuate the weakly claimed date and birth name. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see this much the same way. Keep in mind, de Mornay is reliably reported by the NYT as her childhood name (not birth name), taken from her stepfather. DoB and other sourcing glitches are often found in citing the early lives of entertainers, since the sources do get muddled through publicity and promotion and should be handled with care as to wording. Genealogical websites may be handy for some research, but since they can bring forth meaningful reliability and interpretation worries, editors should be very wary about citing raw genealogical content in BLPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• You do have sources for not 1959, and do have sources that explicitly say "born":
  • Tykus 2000, pp. 135 says "Born Rebecca George, August 29, 1961, in Santa Rosa, CA";
  • Room 2010, pp. 141 says "Rebecca George (1961–)"; and
  • Riggs 2005, pp. 121 says "De MORNAY, Rebecca 1961(?)– (Rebecca DeMornay) Original name, Rebecca George; born August 29, 1961 (some sources say 1962)".
• You also have the all-caps first six words of the Saturday Review article (presumably written some time in 1985, given the issue of the magazine that it is published in):
  • "REBECCA DE MORNAY IS TWENTY-THREE"
• As I said, "sockpuppetting BLP vandal" is a thought that should be coming to mind. And all of the concomitant back-and-forth has rather obliterated the facts that can actually be found written down and published about this person, in biographies and interviews. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

Resolved

 – bot repaired

How do I stop a malfunctioning bot that has no "emergency shutoff" button in its user or user talk pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Which bot is it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Those shut-off buttons often just lead to the "block the user" administrative page, which is a pretty generic type of hammer. Is it severe enough to need immediate halt?--file WP:AIV. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

At a guess, it would be ImageTaggingBot (talk · contribs · logs). Mr Stephen (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes: that is indeed the bot. It's replacing certain special characters with other special characters - that diff is a good example, but see also my recent contributions in User talk: namespace to see the reverts I've done.
Should I serve a {{subst:ANI-notice}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I...DIDN'T...DO...IT. IT'S...A...BUM...RAP. *BEEPBOOP* (quote from ITB) HalfShadow 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the bot. I hope the operator can fix the issue soon, so that the bot can resume its useful work. Ucucha 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... but is a {{subst:ANI-notice}} required or not? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

not really. just tell the botop about hte problem so that she can fix it. theres no need to create a disciplianry action regarding it since it is probably not deliberate vandliam. User:Smith Jones 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong + Pmanderson

Hi community. I just wanted to let you know I've blocked two very longstandingg editors as part of my trolling on WP:AN3. There's also a tiny bit of discussion on my talk page and User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. I want to let everyoe know I stand by this decision (as stated on my talk page, I think one block was probably too lenient, if anything). However, the users are requesting unblock and I want to give them a chance for a hearing, so I'm notifying the community.

I recommend the discussion take place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked). Thanks guys. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i think that there are some very serious issues with this block. First of all, did you just admit that you were TROLLING on WP:AN3?? this is an excellently misappropriate use of your administrative powers to actively troll and you should seriously reconsider whether or not these users deserved to be blocked or not. Secondly, User:Ryulong is a wellie-expected former administrator; you should have given him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to explain itself -- it was proper to block Pmanderson, who has only has had a relatively (Compared to Ryulong) minimal edits and only marginal productivity to the article space, but Ryulong is a much more valuable editor and should have been given to explain before being blocked. User:Smith Jones 04:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion he meant "patrolling". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what kind of user you are. 3RR is a bright line rule and both editors went over it. Ryulong did so with six reverts no less, double the rule. Silverseren^C 05:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the blocks: 3RR being a bright line and these being clear breaches. I disagree with DS's full-protection - locking down an oft-edited MOS page for 16 days doesn't help anyone. The block logs confirm both users have a history of edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think by trolling, he means in the fishing sense. HalfShadow 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• wow i feel liek such a fish right now guys!! sorry, now that i reread that coment its pretty clear. ive never heard someone use trolling the way before; usually i see trawling. could it justbe a typo for patrolling?? User:Smith Jones 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redacting last comment -- i apologze to the admin; Ryulong has been blocke oft and repeatedly for editwarring by is own admission and sees nothing wrong with it. in fac i remember that he was sanctoned for related to therein never. User:Smith Jones 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• In order to keep this centralized, I guess i'll keep my comments here. In regards to Ryulong's recent talk page comment, WP:BOLD does not give an editor the right to start and/or participate in an edit war. Immediately after it went that direction, you should have stopped (at 3 reverts, if you had to even go that far) and taken it either to AN3 or ANI. Furthermore, the discussion on the talk page seems to involve four editors, including yourself. The other three editors disagree with you, so it does seem like consensus on the issue is against you. The other option that you should have done, if you felt that the "concensus" was too limited would have been to take it to other venues in order to encourage more participation in the discussion.

However, as far as I know, you did not do those things. And your comment about Pmanderson is unfounded, considering the concensus on the talk page on the subject. Also remember that he won't have "full reign" over it, considering that it is something that can always be returned to a previous form. My suggestion is that you wait out your block and then go about getting more users involved in the discussion in order to develop a more clear consensus on the topic at hand. Silverseren^C 05:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good blocks, clear edit warring. One open unblock request declined. Both parties have a lot of 3RR blocks going back to 2006 and should really be more than passingly familiar with that policy. This recurring problem may also be grounds for a community-imposed 1RR restriction on both.  Sandstein  08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

having reviewed these two editors incrementally expensive blocklog prior to this incident, I am concerned that further blocks will not have any effect and that this misprism will continue to consternate the community in the future. what i am commending is that the administrator / the community contemplate consultation an article topic probation or a wp:mentor program to assist these editors in avoiding edit conflicts in the narrow future. i would've mind volunteering to serve as one of the wp:mentors for either user, although if eel that the best results would emigrate if we had an administrator serve in that role. User:Smith Jones 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you mean either "incrementally" or "extensively", unless you're a coprophiliac. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Typo is now fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Teargarden by Kaleidyscope

Basically, the current situation there are two editors who think that two specific album singles should be removed from the infobox on the article for the Teargarden by Kaleidyscope. One of them, Fezmar9 seems to actually be trying to improve the article, whereas the other, Sergecross73, in my own opinion, seems more enthusiastic about edit-warring than discussing things civilly. This obviously gets very annoying when I'm trying to simply keep the dispute to the talk page. I have had this exact same problem before, but eventually decided it was pointless arguing with people who are simply going to respond with edit-warring and personal accusations of ownership. In this case, the discussion on whether to remove the content was opened on the talk page and the content was at some point removed, even though I repeatedly made a case for its continued inclusion. No consensus of any kind has been reached. The editor seems to want mainstream sources to warrant the inclusion of something that is typically obscure in all its forms. I have given them sources (as obscure as these sources supposedly are), and have immediately been told that these sources are not notable enough, and that because they are not, that my entire argument in invalid and further. I've suggested bringing this sort of unhelpful interaction to a noticeboard in the past, but decided not to when one of the editors refused to discuss things in such a way, right before trying to get another edit-war going over something else trivial. I'm sick of trying to improve the article when it feels like I'm dealing with passive-aggressive children at times. So any help would be appreciated. Friginator (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure the incident board is the most appropriate avenue for this, perhaps WP:RFC would have been better. But I digress... When I had originally opened up a discussion at Talk:Teargarden by Kaleidyscope#Limited edition singles, I was questioning the inclusion two singles in the album's infobox. The singles in question were extremely limited in quantity, and only were only released in two locations in the US. Removal from the infobox was supported by both members of the discussion, however as the discussion went on and I was doing some research, I could not find a single third-party reliable source documenting these releases establishing their notability. While I have nothing against singles in the infobox in general, these two singles were only documented in blogs and fansites, and their inclusion seemed rather fancrufty to me. I requested that the proper sources be provided, and added citation needed tags where appropriate. Friginator added to the article seemingly whatever the first hits on a Google Search turned up, as none of them met WP:RS criteria; one was a fansite, the other two were user generated. Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, I really don't see why these obscure collectors items absolutely need be mentioned. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all accounts with Fezmar. Furthermore, the "edit-warring" Friginator is refering to was a one time thing a month ago about a separate aspect of the same article, that has already been resolved long ago, and hasn't been mentioned since. (Not to mention it was both of us who was given a single warning for edit warring. It goes both ways.) Back on to current things, I've removed Frigininators content because he cannot provide a source that isn't a fansite or using user-created content, neither of which are wikipedia reliable sources, and to him, that makes me the bad guy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about who's a "good guy" and who's a "bad guy". It's about the unwillingness to discuss things before fighting over them. It also doesn't help that you are continuing to remove the content as we speak. You're completely missing the point of opening this discussion in the first place. Friginator (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing left to discuss. Fansites and blogs like are not reliable sources and not to be used on wikipedia. See WP:ELNO. What exactly are you disputing? That hipsters united is/isn't a fansite? Or that it should be okay to break wikipedia policy when it's in favor of presenting the information you want to present? It seems you have more of a problem with the policies of wikipedia, and blame me for enforcing them. (And I'm not breaking the 3RR rule either, so I'm not doing anything wrong here.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO has nothing to do with citing sources. And exactly what policy states that fansites cannot be used under any circumstances? Friginator (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not worth putting merely as a link, why would it be worthy of inclusion of an article? Please answer over at TBK,it appears you posted this in the wrong area, it doesn't seem like anyone cares around here except for the three of us still..Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to give an admin some time to respond. I'm hoping for an administrator to help with this (that's why it's posted here), so maybe the discussion will actually be constructive. I would have posted it on the content noticeboard or the 3RR noticeboard, but it's not strictly about that. And I'm certainly not going to wait any longer for someone to intervene on the talk page itself. So far, like I said in my first post up there, nothing constructive is getting done and my questions are not being answered. It's just fighting, and I want it to stop. Friginator (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fezmar explained things to you in detail. Again, it seems your bone to pick is more with Wikipedia policy-makers more than either of us. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I want to do is against any Wikiepdia policy I'm aware of, so no, that's not my "bone to pick". I want to list existing singles. Their existence is obviously proven. In this case, that's enough reason to simply list them in the article. The actual problem I'm hoping to address is this pointless arguing. Just like we're doing now. I want that to stop, and I'm hoping someone will actually be reasonable about this. Friginator (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Southsiders

There has been a little bit of drama at Vancouver Southsiders. This report is primarily due to edit warring but since we were both uncivil and reverting too much it belongs here. To make it worse, I am also requesting that User:Walter Görlitz no longer be allowed to use Twinkle since he twice removed edits as vandalism when it was a content dispute.

Edit warring:

• [37] Revert by Walter Görlitz of 96.48.241.69 (might be OK reasoning)
• [38] Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono w/ personal attack in the edit summary
• [39] Revert by Walter Görlitz of Ckatz
• [40] (Misuse of Twinkle) Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono
• [41](Misuse of Twinkle) Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono

I did call him a "fuck" in response to being called a "dolt" and also reverted so I am also in the wrong. Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it] not you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also you told me "And also please don;t start making personal attacks if swearing hurts your feelings.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

NotifiedCptnono (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter two were vandalism since you refused to discuss and you were not reading what was written on talk page. You are attempting to bring another debate into this article. Not realizing why the articles were not the same is why you and the other editor were being dolts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That would not make it vandalism. Anyways, I did respond on your talk page and at the talk. Edit warring and NPA are something we both did but there is absolutely zero excuse for labeling something as vandalism. You misused the tool. Period.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you're both edit warring, and in all honesty, this is a pretty lame thing to get blocked over. Dayewalker (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But 5 reverts and a misuse of the tool was a little too much for me to stomach. Is there another step short of blocking or is that the best way to handle it?Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What should an editor do when another is pushing a WP:POV onto an article where it has no place and refuses to even acknowledge an attempt at discussion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there are several reverts in this edit war over whether or not to put the word "Southsiders" in one of the section headings. How is that vandalism or POV pushing? And how is that worth either of you edit warring over? I just don't see what's going on here. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is weird. There have been issues and two editors reverted another. My reasoning as primarily based on MoS but the NPA plus previous concerns about the whole subject were enough to think that it was time to not edit the article. My bad for doing more reverts (I did revet myself which sucks) and being a jerk but 3/rr is a bright line. He crossed it. He also misused Twinkle. To be honest, I could just be being a jerk but I am not. Even if I was, 3/rr is 3/rr.Cptnono (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the debate is whether to use the term move or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Group

User:660gd4qo has been trying to edit the article Samsung Group in a way that could be seen as being biased towards Samsung.

What they've said is that the section regarding the alleged price fixing by Samsung should be removed because it was already mentioned in another articlehere is the diff.

However what the editor also wants to remove in it's entirety is the section of the article regarding the lawsuit Samsung initiated against Michael Breen diff here. I've attempted to explain on the talk page that a section of this does belong on Samsung's page because the reference points out that the article was poking fun at Samsung's alleged corruption and bribery issues and it was Samsung that issued lawsuits against the newspaper, the editor and Michael Breen the journalist. However the editor has posted on the talk page saying that this does not belong in Samsung's article because it is irrelevant to Samsung. As it is it was only a few sentences so it wasn't giving the article any undue weight and removing it in it's entirety I think would show bias towards Samsung.

I attempted to re-word the section to correct grammar, remove duplications and also to clarify as per the references provided in the article that Samsung only dropped the lawsuit against the newspaper and it's editor once an apology was issued but they still continued with the lawsuit against the journalist, that too got reverted.

I posted messages on about 3 or 4 users talk pages to tell them that there is a discussion at the Samsung talk page and to ask for their opinion but the user complained on my talk that I was canvassing, though funnily they didn't do that until another editor posted and agreed with me!

Can we please have admin intervention here?--5 albert square (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which is not something the WP:ANI handles--that is, there is nothing here for administrators to do. As is mentioned on the article's talk page, the appropriate next step is to either ask for a third opinion or open an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Major edits without discussion and without consensus on the articles Almohad Caliphate and Almoravid dynasty

Hello,

The users Bokpasa and موريسكو started (again) editing consensual articles [42][43], without discussion and without looking for a new consensus [44][45].

Before that, Bokpasa was involved in major PoV/vandalism on some articles (History of Morocco, Western Sahara, Gibraltar, Perejil Island, Almohads, Almoravids...) and موريسكو was blocked a few weeks ago for the reasons and for the same articles [46].

Thanks to do something to prevent a degradation of the articles.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an area in which i have some background. You appear to be a nationalist POV pusher yourself Omar (for instance this edit [47]. You're trying to fram the Almohad dynasty as "morrocan." That was 900 years ago, in dramatically different geopolitical times.). It may well be that the editor/s on the other side of this are also problematic. Someone get the Middle Eastern history editorial and standards team in there, I'm sure we'll get that fixed up in a jiffy! I'd do it, but i'm not on the team and lifes too short to deal with the plague.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the article to its previous version, which was consensual. I didn't "change" or tried to frame anything as Moroccan or not Moroccan.

Please see articles' history, you can easily understand that I'm not a "nationalist PoV pusher". I'm contributing with all the neutrality, reverting even the edits which match my PoV but aren't neutral.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail, File:The Globe and Mail frontpage new.jpg

Resolved

 – User received warning. Will be reported for any further vandalism Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:GregoryPolskyJr has made a number of edits to the front page image[48] for The Globe and Mail substituting a false image for the original. (an anonymous user has also been making spurious edits to the Globe page itself recently). He has also made a number of spurious edits to the user pages[49] for people who have reverted his edits (For instance changing their political affiliation.) Comments? -Dhodges (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e6/20101211151056!The_Globe_and_Mail_frontpage_new.jpg

Yeah, this dude seems to have lost it completely. For those who are blind as I was at first, it's photoshoped (twice) to read Globe and Fail... I have to admit this is the most creative and time-consuming vandalism I've seen. I will issue a final vandalism warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello thank you for your compliments. It's not that time consuming. I also changed the titles to be more accurate of the true globe and mail and left wing media and also, put the right logo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this guy also vandalized several userboxes, and responded to the vandal-warning with this. Someone's on a mission... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The banner ad for the Royal Bank on the bottom of the newspaper was also swapped out for a different image that apparently is a political message. They have not edited since Seb posted the final warning on their talk page. We should watch for more activity. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it is a banner ad for the NDP which is a socialist party, and the the Globe and Fail is very fond of them and I thought they should directly tell their readers about it. I only want the encyclopedia to be fair and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, dude. You got your final vandalism warning, we know you've read it, don't do it again, and don't pull any of those others stunts, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a « dude », and you should know that with authority, comes the responsibility of using a proper form of language addressing people you don't know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several "proper forms" to address you by, but I doubt you'd like any of them... HalfShadow 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lest you think it is just a "vast liberal conspiracy" threatning to keep you down, as a Conservative/Wildroase Alliance supporter federally and provincially, I can assure you that you will be blocked indefinitely if you fail to heed the warnings given above. Resolute 21:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Platonov

An editor is removing sourced text from the above article as being ' Family problems irrelevant in this article'. The 'family problem' led to an arrest for attempted murder and a resignation from a university. Is the SPA editor User:Amartin1910 right to do this or am I right to restore the material? I have requested the editor to discuss the matter on the article talk page, with no result. User:RadioFan reverted a similar edit from an IP. I have no personal interest in this matter - I just saw section blanking and removal of sourced material. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My quick look determines that none of the statements are sourced. The only reference provided seems to be to support the claim of early retirement which is not in the source provided. The source provided is a statement from the University of Waterloo that they are looking into the matter. It does claim a conviction and charges for serious crimes but a better source should be required for contentious statements like this in a BLP. These claims should be removed and should not be added back until better sourcing is provided. And care should be taken to keep strictly to the sources. WTucker (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP Backlog

Got a bit of a backlog on RPP. Could an admin or two take a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks find now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork

This is a multiply banned user. Kwork got dinged years ago, then was allowed to "vanish." He somehow was allowed to return as User:Malcolm Schosha got banned under that account too (mostly for serial and unfounded accusations of antisemitism against people who disagreed with him). That discussion is here.[50]. He's then been found to be socking through IPs, advocating for other banned/indef blocked users, throwing around unfounded and hateful accusations against others (me among them, if that wasn't obvious). When i came up against him, i figured out who the IP belonged too by looking at old talk pages and archives of noticeboards like this one. If I were to be subject to such stalking and abuse now (without the background i have in my head at this point) I wouldn't be able to put two and two together. Why? A series of "courtesy deletions" of the "Malcolm Schosha" talk pages and user pages. If one goes to any of the old noticeboards and stumbles across the name Malcolm Schosha (or, as i did, looks at the "global contributions" of one of his IPs and find him correcting his own logged out edits on commons, where he's still somewhat active as "Malcolm Schosha") and try to look at the user's contributions, you find he's been airbrushed out of history. It turns out that, as a courtesy to this banned abusive editor, an account called User:Kwork2 has been created for his old contributions. But you'd never find it or stumble across it in the same way. It's my understanding that banned, abusive editors don't have a right to vanish, or courtesy blankings, or what have you, particularly ones with a recent record of socking to abuse others. As I see it, a nationalist edit warrior (who repeatedly said he intended to sock and edit as he sees fit, when he sees fit) is being enabled by this obfuscation of the history. What do i want? While i think the talk page of Schosha should be restored, i'll let that go. All i want is a redirect from the old name User:Malcolm Schosha to the "courtesy rename" of User:Kwork2. Why? So others will have as good a chance of catching him and his abuse when/if he turns on them. Would be interested to hear the reasoning behind these favors being done for this fellow, and why they're being done (obviously emails/chatroom stuff).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's his contributions under the name "Malcolm Schosha" at commons. [51]. Have a look at the block log. Reminisicent of his own behavior here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosa has done lasting damage to a lot of articles (see his tactics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem/Archive_1 ) and contributed to the dreadful state of the Middle East topic. It's difficult to understand why his contribution record has disappeared, other than to make it easier for him to return and carry on where he's been forced to leave off. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)